Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, California

NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
THESIS
EVALUATION OF MODERN NAVIES’ DAMAGE

CONTROL AND FIREFIGHTING TRAINING USING
SIMULATOR PLATFORMS
by
Georgios Varelas
September 2011
Thesis Advisor: Michael McCauley

Thesis Co-Advisor: Anthony Ciavarelli
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA
22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 2011 Master’s Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Evaluation of Modern Navies’ Damage Control and 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Firefighting Training using Simulator Platforms
6. AUTHOR(S) Georgios Varelas
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number ________________.
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
Modern navies have faced new roles and challenges during the last decade. From purely defensive
responsibilities, modern navies have now taken on such multiple challenges in the worldwide theater, as peace
keeping missions, humanitarian assistance, anti-piracy support, disaster assistance and others, both military and
sociological in scope. Furthermore, the increasing complexity of these missions mandates a strong, constant
operational readiness and a high level of performance in the full spectrum of a ship’s activities. In order for these
missions to be accomplished successfully, survivability is the foremost concern, and the cornerstone of survivability
is damage control. Permanent, continuous and high-level damage control and firefighting training for all
crewmembers of a navy ship is paramount. Hopefully, this training can be achieved safely, efficiently and
economically by using simulation and training simulator platforms, which have dominated the training field in the last
few decades. After participating in “damage control” and “firefighting” courses, investigating the main training
system components, and administering surveys to instructors and students regarding subjective ratings and opinions
about the training system, we found that the U.S. Navy Damage Control & Firefighting Training at San Diego
location is very effective, valuable, and beneficial to ships crews and the U.S. Navy.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF

PAGES
115
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
i
ii
EVALUATION OF MODERN NAVIES’ DAMAGE CONTROL AND

FIREFIGHTING TRAINING USING SIMULATOR PLATFORMS
Georgios Varelas
Lieutenant Commander, Hellenic Navy
B.S., Hellenic Naval Academy , 1994
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MODELING, VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS,

AND SIMULATION (MOVES)
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

September 2011
Author: Georgios Varelas
Approved by: Michael E. McCauley

Thesis Advisor
Anthony Ciavarelli
Thesis Co-Advisor
Mathias Kolsch
Chairman, MOVES Academic Commitee
Peter J. Denning
Chairman, Computer Science Academic Committee
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
Modern navies have faced new roles and challenges during the last decade. From purely
defensive responsibilities, modern navies have now taken on such multiple challenges in
the worldwide theater, as peace keeping missions, humanitarian assistance, anti-piracy
support, disaster assistance and others, both military and sociological in scope.
Furthermore, the increasing complexity of these missions mandates a strong, constant
operational readiness and a high level of performance in the full spectrum of a ship’s
activities. In order for these missions to be accomplished successfully, survivability is the
foremost concern, and the cornerstone of survivability is damage control. Permanent,
continuous and high-level damage control and firefighting training for all crewmembers
of a navy ship is paramount. Hopefully, this training can be achieved safely, efficiently
and economically by using simulation and training simulator platforms, which have
dominated the training field in the last few decades. After participating in “damage
control” and “firefighting” courses, investigating the main training system components,
and administering surveys to instructors and students regarding subjective ratings and
opinions about the training system, we found that the U.S. Navy Damage Control &
Firefighting Training at San Diego location, is very effective, valuable, and beneficial to
ships crews and the U.S. Navy.
v
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
B. MOTIVATION ................................................................................................2
C. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..................3
1. Primary Objective ................................................................................3
2. Secondary Objectives...........................................................................3
D. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................3
1. Field Observation and Researcher’s Training Participation...........3
2. Training System Components Examination......................................3
3. Survey Administration - Data Collection ..........................................4
E. CHAPTER OUTLINE.....................................................................................4
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................................7
A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................7
B. SURVIVABILITY, DAMAGE CONTROL AND FIRE
FUNDAMENTALS ..........................................................................................7
1. Fire Concern .........................................................................................9
2. Fire Prevention ...................................................................................10
3. Chemistry of Fire ...............................................................................10
a. Start of a Fire ..........................................................................10
b. Combustion..............................................................................11
c. Radiation Heat ........................................................................11
4. Requirements for Combustion..........................................................11
a. Fire Triangle ...........................................................................11
b. Fire Tetrahedron .....................................................................12
5. Fire Products ......................................................................................12
6. Fire Classifications .............................................................................12
a. Class ALPHA (A) ....................................................................12
b. Class BRAVO (B) ....................................................................13
c. Class CHARLIE (C)................................................................13
d. Class DELTA (D) ....................................................................13
7. Fire Spread .........................................................................................14
8. Fire Stages...........................................................................................14
9. Fire Extinguishment ..........................................................................14
10. Firefighting Agents ............................................................................14
C. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, PAST INCIDENTS AND
LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................15
1. Pearl Harbor, WWII .........................................................................15
2. USS Forrestal (CVA-59) Incident.....................................................17
3. USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) Incident ...............................................21
4. USS Stark (FFG-31) Incident ...........................................................22
5. USS Cole (DDG-67) Incident ............................................................25
vii
D. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................26
E. TRAINING IN THE U.S NAVY...................................................................26
1. Importance of Training .....................................................................26
2. Three Basic Features of an Effective Unit Training Program.......27
3. Requirements for Effective Training ...............................................27
4. Damage Control and Firefighting Training in the U.S. Navy........28
F. SIMULATION AND TRAINING ................................................................29
III. FIREFIGHTING TRAINING PROGRAM ANALYSES......................................33
A. U.S. NAVY’S DAMAGE CONTROL AND FIREFIGHTING
TRAINING .....................................................................................................33
1. General Shipboard Firefighting Course (J-495-0412) ....................34
a. Objective of the Course ...........................................................34
b. Prerequisites ............................................................................34
c. Safety Risks and Hazardous Material ....................................35
d. Course Schedule......................................................................35
2. Advanced Shipboard Firefighting Course (J-495-0419) ................35
b. Prerequisites ............................................................................36
c. Safety Risks and Hazardous Material ....................................36
d. Course Schedule......................................................................36
3. Aviation Firefighting .........................................................................36
4. Aviation Firefighting Team Evaluation ...........................................37
5. Shipboard Aviation Firefighting ......................................................37
6. General Shipboard Firefighting with SCBA ...................................37
B. FIREFIGHTING TRAINING IN FOREIGN NAVIES AND THE
CIVILIAN SECTOR .....................................................................................37
1. Hellenic Navy’s Firefighting Training .............................................37
a. Selection and Training of Qualified Instructors ...................38
b. Objective of the “Damage Control 5” Course........................38
c. Prerequisites ............................................................................39
d. Training Syllabus with Specific Learning Objectives ...........39
e. Description of Curricula/Training Scenarios ........................39
2. Shipboard Firefighting Course for Ship’s Fire Parties
Personnel (Damage Control 1)..........................................................39
b. Prerequisites ............................................................................40
c. Safety Precautions...................................................................40
d. Curriculum Development Method ..........................................41
e. Evaluation ...............................................................................44
3. United Kingdom Royal Navy’s Firefighting Training....................45
4. U.S. Navy’s Damage Control and Firefighting Training
Program versus Hellenic’s Navy Firefighting Training .................46
5. Civilian Firefighting, U.S. Fire Administration – National Fire
Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland................................................49
viii
a. Mandatory Prerequisite for all National Academy
Courses ....................................................................................50
b. Evaluation ...............................................................................50
c. Simulation in Firefighting Training ......................................51
IV. PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH OBJECTIVES,
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................53
A. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................53
B. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................53
1. Field Observation and Researcher’s Training Participation.........53
a. Theoretical Phase....................................................................54
b. Simulator Platform Briefing...................................................54
c. Simulator Platforms - Trainers ..............................................55
d. Practical Phase – Simulator Platform Exercises ...................57
e. Simulator Debriefing ..............................................................59
2. Training System Components Investigation ...................................59
a. Training Syllabus/Learning Objectives .................................59
b. Description of Curricula/Training Scenarios ........................60
c. Instructor Qualification Standards. Selection, Training,
Certification, and Evaluation of Qualified Instructors .........61
d. Training System Resources ....................................................65
e. Training Plan and Schedule Management ............................65
f. Simulation Utilization Log and Other Management Data ....66
g. Training Evaluation Criteria and Performance
Measurement Methods............................................................66
h. Training Performance Data ...................................................66
3. Survey Administration - Data Collection ........................................66
a. Participant Population and Recruitment ...............................67
b. Survey Administration (with Rating Items and Open-
ended Items) ............................................................................67
V. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................69
A. DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................................................69
B. STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR OPINION FORM
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ...............................................................69
1. Student Opinion Forms .....................................................................69
a. Rating Questions .....................................................................69
b. Open-ended Questions ............................................................79
2. Instructor Opinion Forms .................................................................80
a. Rating Questions .....................................................................80
b. Open-ended Questions ............................................................83
VI. DISCUSSION, SUMMARY FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
FUTURE RESEARCH ..............................................................................................85
A. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................85
B. SUMMARY FINDINGS................................................................................86
C. RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................86
ix
D. FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................................................87
APPENDIX A. STUDENT OPINION FORM QUESTIONNAIRE ........................89
APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTOR OPINION FORM QUESTIONNAIRE ................91
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................93
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .........................................................................................97
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Systems Approach to Survivability (From NTTP 3-20.31 Surface Ship

Survivability, 2004) ...........................................................................................9
Figure 2. Requirements for Combustion (From Gustavb, 2006) ....................................11
Figure 3. USS Arizona Burning at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (From
Official U.S. Navy Photograph, 1941).............................................................16
Figure 4. Burning Ships after the Attack on Pearl Harbor (From Official U.S. Navy
Photograph, 1941) ............................................................................................17
Figure 5. Fire Spreading on the USS Forrestal (From PH2 Mason, USN, 1967) ...........20
Figure 6. Firefighting on Board the USS Forrestal (From Official U.S. Navy
Photograph, 1967) ............................................................................................20
Figure 7. Fire on Board the USS Enterprise (From USN, 1969) ....................................21
Figure 8. Firefighting Efforts aboard the USS Enterprise (From Leonhardt, 1969) .......22
Figure 9. The USS Stark Listing to Port One Day after she was hit by Two-Exocet
Missiles (From Navy Command, 1987)...........................................................23
Figure 10. The USS Stark on fire (From Navy Command, 1987) ....................................24
Figure 11. A View of the External Damage to the Stark’s Port Side (From Navy
Command, 1987 ).............................................................................................24
Figure 12. USS Cole After the Attack (From USN, 2000) ...............................................25
Figure 13. Ship Interior Presented by the VESSEL Game (From Raytheon BBN
Technologies, 2011) .........................................................................................31
Figure 14. U.S Firefighting Trainer, an Example of a “Virtual” Simulation ....................31
Figure 15. Fire in the Engine Room in the Phoenix CBRNBC School (From Crown,
2009) ................................................................................................................46
Figure 16. National Fire Academy’s Simulation Laboratory (From U.S. Fire
Administration, 2011) ......................................................................................51
Figure 17. Exercise Controllers Running a Simulation in the Laboratory (From U.S.
Fire Administration, 2011)...............................................................................52
Figure 18. Damage Control - “Wet Trainer” Simulator ....................................................55
Figure 19. Firefighting Simulator -“Advanced Firefighting Trainer” ...............................56
Figure 20. Flight Deck Simulator, San Diego ...................................................................57
Figure 21. Firefighting Simulator Control Station ............................................................58
Figure 22. Damage Control-Wet Trainer Simulator .........................................................58
Figure 23. Firefighting Simulator Platform .......................................................................59
Figure 24. Instructor Certification/Evaluation Flow Chart (From NAVEDTRA 135C,
2010) ................................................................................................................64
xi
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Fire Classifications...........................................................................................13

Table 2. Theoretical Course Description .......................................................................42
Table 3. Simulator Training Description .......................................................................43
Table 4. U.S. and Hellenic Navies’ Damage Control/Firefighting Program
Comparison ......................................................................................................49
Table 5. Question 1 Results ...........................................................................................70
Table 14. Question 10 Results .........................................................................................75
xiii
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank my country Greece and my service, the Hellenic Navy,
which gave me the opportunity to participate as a student in the Naval Postgraduate
School in the Master’s Degree program. I would like also to thank the U.S. government
which accepted and hosted me in NPS for these studies.
Second, I would like to thank my thesis advisors, Dr, McCauley and Dr,
Ciavarelli for their valuable and paradigmatic assistance, guidance, and support. Their
experience, knowledge and expertise were fundamental for my research.
Third, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the administration of the

U.S. Navy Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego for allowing me to
visit the Training Facility and observe/participate in damage control and firefighting
courses during 13-17 June 2011. Particularly, I would like to thank LT Ponce for his
assistance and help. Moreover, I would like to thank LT Nigel McDonald, DCC Shawn
Meredith and the instructors of the training facilities for their time and patience in taking
me through their course fundamentals and supporting my effort to observe simulation
exercises.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my wife for her moral support,
patience and help during my stay in NPS.
xv
xvi
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
Navies have always played a vital role in their countries in both peacetime and
wartime. Perceiving this fact, nations use their Navies as an essential tool in
implementing their military strategy. The basic responsibility and task of the Navy is to
defend and preserve the integrity and interests of the home country by protecting physical
borders and ensuring independence. Without doubt, war ships are the principal tool of the
Navy in defending against any potential enemy and in applying the aforementioned
strategy.
Especially during the last decade, the global population has faced changes in
many aspects of their life such as demands in political, social, economic, cultural, and
diplomatic activities. Navies also are affected by those alterations; consequently, they
have faced new roles and challenges. Not only are military challenges served by the Navy
today; Navies are also considered the representative of peace, the protector of the
economy and the champion of social aims. Peacekeeping missions, humanitarian
assistance, anti-terrorist operations, anti-piracy support, physical disaster assistance and
many actions, both military and sociological in scope, are the focus of the Navy in recent
years. No one could argue that these missions are not complex and difficult to be
accomplished effectively. What is certain is that Navy ships must have a constant
operational readiness and a high level of performance in the full spectrum of their
activities. In order for these tasks to be accomplished successfully both during wartime
and peacetime, survivability and integrity of Navy ships are paramount. The cornerstone
of both is damage control, especially firefighting.
It is obvious that permanent, continuous and high-level damage control and

firefighting training for all crewmembers of a navy ship is essential. Training is
absolutely critical with respect to damage control and firefighting. While the main task of
naval ships during periods of war is to be involved in military operations, in peace time
1
this task is to focus on training, maintenance and administration. Today modern Navies
maintain a continuous and uninterrupted operational rhythm: ships and crewmembers
spend most of the time in deployments, inevitably resulting in decreasing time for
training (Betts, 2008). Such issues could severely affect the readiness and performance of
ships and crewmembers with dangerous results in case of real combat operations. This
training can be achieved safely, efficiently, economically and in minimum time by using
simulation and simulator training platforms (Jones, 2008). Simulators have dominated the
training field for some time. Using simulators, efficient, safe and economical training can
be achieved. This benefit becomes more significant when one recognizes that military
budgets limit available time for training due to the plethora of deployments.
B. MOTIVATION
In July 2001, the author was trained as a Damage Control Assistant in the
facilities of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers School Command (SWOS) in
Newport, Rhode Island. For almost two months, he received professional and high
quality training, theoretical and practical, simulated in all aspects of damage control,
especially firefighting. Furthermore, as the Hellenic Navy purchased and installed a
modern fire simulator almost four years prior in the facilities of its Damage Control
School, the author felt the call for and the need to contribute in some way to his service
by utilizing his education obtained in SWOS and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)
and transferring that knowledge and his experience. Thus, evaluating the U.S. damage
control and firefighting training programs using simulator platforms and transferring that
training to the Hellenic Damage Control School, where an equivalent firefighting
simulator exists, he considered this a very important and beneficial contribution to the
Hellenic Navy. Furthermore, the ultimate goal of this thesis was to create a general
“training evaluation model” which could be applied not only in damage control and
firefighting programs but also in any training program with similar characteristics.
2
C. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This thesis focuses on the following objectives:
1. Primary Objective
• Evaluate the damage control and firefighting training provided by the U.S.
Navy in the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego,
using simulator platforms, as they are currently used at the San Diego
location
2. Secondary Objectives
• Identify whether this training meets its goals and objectives

• Identify whether trainees and the U.S. Navy benefit from this training
D. METHODOLOGY
1. Field Observation and Researcher’s Training Participation
The researcher visited the Center for Naval Engineering, Learning Site in San
Diego, and participated as a student in the “Shipboard Damage Control Trainer” and
“Shipboard Firefighting” training courses that took place from June13-17, 2011. The
purpose of the visit was to observe and take an active part, in ongoing team training
during simulated damage control and firefighting exercises/drills. Thus, the researcher
was able to gain insight into damage control and firefighting training programs using
simulator platforms.
2. Training System Components Examination
The main training system components of the “Damage Control” and “Shipboard
Firefighting” courses were examined as follows:
• Training syllabus/learning objectives
• Description of curricula/training scenarios
• Instructor qualification standards
• Selection, training, certification, and evaluation of qualified instructors
3
• Training system resources
• Training plan and schedule management
• Simulation utilization log and other management data
• Training evaluation criteria and performance measurement methods
• Training performance data
3. Survey Administration - Data Collection
After the completion of each course, the researcher administered a survey

(questionnaires) to both instructors and students regarding their attitudes and opinions
about the training provided and received, respectively.
E. CHAPTER OUTLINE
The outline of the remaining chapters is as follows:

II. Literature Review
A. Introduction
B. Survivability, Damage Control, and Fire Fundamentals
C. Historical Background, Past Incidents, and Lessons Learned
D. Conclusions
E. Training in the U.S Navy
F. Simulation and Training
III. Firefighting Training Program Analyses
A. U.S Navy’s Firefighting Training
B. Firefighting Training In Foreign Navies and the Civilian Sector
IV. Problem Statement, Research Objectives, and Methodology
A. Problem Statement and Research Objectives
B. Methodology
2. Training System Components Examination
4
V. Results
A. Data Analysis
B. Student and Instructor Opinion Form Questionnaire Responses
VI. Discussion, Summary Findings, Recommendations, and Future Research
A. Discussion
B. Summary Findings
C. Recommendations
D. Future Research
5
6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. INTRODUCTION
Undoubtedly, people are living in an era of changes. Dramatic and intensive

alterations in all dimensions of life such as, social, economic, cultural, and military, are
occurring. Navies and Navy ships are analogous to living organisms in a society, and
consequently they must be concerned with this new reality. While during war time the
Navy’s goal is to preserve the nation’s interests by fighting, in times of peace, different
kinds of missions are required. There is also no doubt, that in the future Navy ships will
be called upon to accomplish new and possibly unknown challenges. Therefore, it is
obvious that a ship’s ability to perform these multifaceted missions will depend upon the
efficiency of its damage control organization, which ensures its integrity and
survivability. But how does one define the terms “survivability” and “damage control?”
Why are they so important for Navy ships?
B. SURVIVABILITY, DAMAGE CONTROL AND FIRE FUNDAMENTALS
At this point, the author considers it is essential to provide the readers with
general information about survivability, damage control and fire basics that underlie the
shipboard damage control training requirements. The presentation of these damage
control fundamentals will help to fully understand the goals and objectives of this
research. The following information is typical of the facts, concepts and other knowledge
requirements that are normally taught in the classroom prior to undertaking simulation
training exercises in firefighting.
“Survivability” is defined as the capacity of a ship to absorb damage and maintain

mission integrity (Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,
2004).
7
“Damage control” in naval usage, according to the Military Dictionary
(http://www.military-dictionary.org/DAMAGE_CONTROL), constitutes the measures
necessary aboard a ship to:
• Contain, preserve and re-establish watertight integrity, stability,
maneuverability, combat systems and offensive power
• Control list and trim
• Effect rapid repairs of materiel
• Limit the spread of and provide adequate protection from fire
• Limit the spread of, remove the contamination by, and provide adequate
protection from chemical, biological, and radiological agents
• Provide care of wounded personnel
Just as combat systems dominate the battle space outside the ship, the goal of
damage control is to dominate casualties inside the ship (Naval Sea Systems Command,
Naval Ship’s Technical Manual (NSTM, Ch079V2R2), 2000). The basic objectives of
shipboard damage control, as described in NAVEDTRA 14057 (2003), are “to take all
practical preliminary measures to prevent damage, to minimize and localize damage as it
occurs, and to accomplish emergency repairs as quickly as possible to restore equipment
in operation, and care for injured personnel.” These damage control objectives are the
same either in peace time or in war. Although the procedures used for damage control
change over time in order to enhance performance, the basic concept and problem are
constant. Damage control, especially fire fighting, is a basic pillar of a ship’s
survivability. Firefighting and damage control have been important to the U.S. Navy
since the age of sailing. This concept remained vitally important, since naval ships
contained large quantities of fuel, oil, weapons, ammunition, aircraft, helicopters, and
many other hazardous and flammable materials (Stewart, 2004). This concept remains
vital today since modern naval ships contain large quantities of fuel, oil, weapons,
ammunition, aircraft, helicopters, and many other hazardous and flammable materials.
The basic pillars of “survivability” are shown in the Figure 1 following:
8
Figure 1. Systems Approach to Survivability (From NTTP 3-20.31 Surface Ship
Survivability, 2004)
1. Fire Concern
Fires account for more deaths in the United States than all natural disasters
combined. Between 1992 and 2001, an average of 4,266 people died and 24,913 were
injured per year due to fires, not including the 9/11 tragedy (Wilson, Steingart, Russel,
Reynolds, Mellers, Redfern, Lim, Watts, Patton, Baker, & Wright, 2005). Each year in
the U.S., fires kill about 4,000 civilians and 100 firefighters (among the approximately
1.1 million firefighters) in the line of duty (National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),
2011). Firefighting is a dangerous profession that calls for quick decisions in high stress
environments, constant reassessment of dynamic situations, and close coordination within
teams (Jiang, Chen, Hong, Wang, Takayama, & Landay, 2004). Fire is so elemental and
fundamental to life on this earth that it is a source of wonder that man has not learned to
master its destructive force (Clark, 1991).
9
2. Fire Prevention
The following information is extracted from the Naval Ship’s Technical Manual
Ch555V1R12 Surface Ship Firefighting and on the Naval Education and Training
(NAVEDTRA 14057, 2003).
Fire prevention and firefighting have proven essential to survival of a ship in

peace-time, and combat efforts must be made continually to reduce the damage resulting
from fire (NTTP 3-20.31 Surface Ship Survivability, 2004).
Many ships have been lost by fire. Fleet loss experience indicates that fire
has caused more damage than groundings, collisions, or flooding.
Experience also indicates that steel ships can become floating furnaces,
fed by the combustible material carried on board. Some ships have
become blazing infernos that had to be abandoned and later sunk by their
own forces because fires grew out of control and prevented the effective
application of damage control procedures.(Naval Ship’s Technical Manual
Ch555V1R12, 2006)
Consequently, fire is a constant danger aboard a ship, so preventive measures are

required to minimize the possibility of the occurrence of fire. When a fire appears,
actions for extinguishing it must be taken immediately. The initial few minutes of a fire
are critical for the survival of a ship.
3. Chemistry of Fire
Fire or combustion is defined as “a rapid, persistent chemical reaction that

releases energy (heat and light) and is accompanied by flame, especially the exothermic
oxidation (chemical reaction between oxygen and the burning materials) of a combustible
substance” (Farlex, 2011).
a. Start of a Fire
Every material is presented in one of three states: solid, liquid or gas. The
atoms and molecules of solid materials are strongly connected together, while in liquid
materials they are packed loosely. The molecules of vapor materials are not connected
10
and are free to move. Therefore, if the molecules in vapors are surrounded by oxygen
molecules, fire starts; that is the reason why only vapors can burn.
b. Combustion
Combustion is the rapid oxidation of millions of vapor molecules. This

process generates energy in the form of heat and light.
c. Radiation Heat
The heat produced by the combustion reaction is emitted radially in all

directions, and a portion of it radiates in the seat of the fire and revitalizes the fire.
4. Requirements for Combustion
a. Fire Triangle
The generation of a fire requires three components: the combustible

material or fuel, oxygen and high temperature or heat. Those components form the “fire
triangle”, which can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Requirements for Combustion (From Gustavb, 2006)
If any side of the triangle does not exist, a fire cannot be started. Thus, a
fire is controlled and extinguished if at least one side of the triangle is removed. The goal
of extinguishing a fire is to eliminate the heat, oxygen, or fuel. The combustible materials
can be solid (e.g., wood, paper, cloth), liquid (e.g., oil, gasoline, paint), electrical
11
equipment (e.g., wires, motors), or metals. For a hot enough fuel source to be burned, an
ignition source must be present. The flash point is the lowest temperature at which a
material produce vapors ready to burn in the presence of an ignition source or flame. The
fire point is the temperature at which a fuel continues to burn after its ignition. The fire
point is higher than the flash point. Auto ignition refers to the lowest temperature when a
material can be burned without any ignition source or flame. The oxygen component is
meant as the oxygen level of the air. Usually, concentrations of fifteen percent and higher
in oxygen are enough to maintain the chemical reaction of fire.
b. Fire Tetrahedron
Another precondition required for a fire to exist is an uninterrupted

chemical chain reaction that transforms the fire triangle to a fire tetrahedron.
5. Fire Products
As previously mentioned, fire is a chemical reaction that generates flames, heat,

smoke, and gases. Those gases are mostly toxic and dangerous, reducing the available
amount of oxygen for breathing. Smoke is the visible product of a fire and very
dangerous since it reduces visibility and carries poisonous gases that can be fatal for
firefighters when inhaled. Therefore, fire is a major and direct threat to a crewmember’s
life. Proper dress and protective gear should be present during a fire incident in order for
personnel to be protected from the flames, heat, smoke, and gases.
6. Fire Classifications
Fires are distinguished according to the characteristics of the fuel sources. Each
type of fire requires different extinguishing agents and special techniques.
a. Class ALPHA (A)
Fires in which the combustible materials are solid, such as clothes, wood,
or papers, are classified as Class A fires. The main extinguishing agent is water.
12
b. Class BRAVO (B)
Fires in which the combustible materials are flammable liquids such as oil,
gasoline, kerosene, or paints, are classified as Class B fires. Usually, halon, the dry
chemical Purple-K-Powder (PKP) or aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) are used to
extinguish these kinds of fires.
c. Class CHARLIE (C)
Fires in which the combustible materials are relative to electric equipment

are classified as Class C fires. Although PKP can be used, carbon dioxide (CO2) and
halon are suggested since they do not destroy the electrical circuits and leave no residue.
d. Class DELTA (D)
Fires in which the combustible materials are metals, such as magnesium or

titanium, are classified as Class D fires. Water in large quantities is usually applied to
extinguish these fires. These fire classifications are summarized in the Table 1 below:
FIRE CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLES OF TYPES TYPE OF

OF MATERIAL EXTINGUISHER
ALPHA Solids : Paper, wood, Water

mattress, cloths
BRAVO Liquids: oil, paints, diesel AFFF, halon, PKP, CO2,

oil, gasoline, kerosene water fog
CHARLIE Electric: wires, motors CO2, halon
PKP can be used as last

option
DELTA Metals Discard from ship, water in

large amounts, sand
Table 1. Fire Classifications
13
7. Fire Spread
A fire must be dealt with quickly and efficiently in order to be isolated in the
space where it started. Otherwise, it spreads rapidly to other areas and creates new fires,
releasing significant amounts of heat and becoming uncontrollable.
8. Fire Stages
Growth stage is the phase where the average space temperature is low and the fire
is localized in its source. The rollover stage is when gases are burning and there is flame
formation across the overhead of the space. The flashover stage is the short period of time
when fire transits from the grown stage to the fully developed stage and the temperatures
reached are almost 1100° F (600°C). The fully developed fire stage occurs when all
combustible materials have reached their ignition temperature and are burning. Finally,
the decay stage is the period when the fire has consumed all the available fuel and decays
until it is completely extinguished.
9. Fire Extinguishment
A fire can be extinguished if any side of the fire triangle is isolated. Thereby, fuel
can be removed by discarding it overboard, oxygen by decreasing its level in the air to
under fifteen percent, and heat by the method of cooling. Breaking the combustion chain
reaction is also an effective method to extinguish a fire.
10. Firefighting Agents
Many firefighting agents are available depending mainly on the type of fire one
has to deal with. In this way, water, aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), carbon dioxide
(CO2), potassium bicarbonate (PKP), and halon are the basic agents against fire aboard
ships.
14
C. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, PAST INCIDENTS AND LESSONS
LEARNED
In this section, the author describes some representative incidents/mishaps in the

U.S. Navy in order to reveal and illustrate the importance and significance of damage
control and firefighting. In civilian life, surely, the catalogue of disasters and casualties
due to fires worldwide is longer and more significant, but this research is focused on
naval firefighting.
1. Pearl Harbor, WWII
The following information is based on the Department of Defense, 50th

Anniversary of World War II Commemorative Committee document titled: Pearl
Harbor, 50th Anniversary Commemorative Chronicle, "A Grateful Nation Remembers"
1941-1991.
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the U.S. Navy’s infrastructures in Pearl

Harbor, Hawaii, with six carriers and 353 aircraft, completely surprising U.S. forces. At
that time, more than ninety ships were anchored in Pearl Harbor. The Japanese aircraft
attacked the stationed ships using bombs and torpedoes. The USS West Virginia (BB-48)
sank quickly. The USS Oklahoma (BB-37) turned turtle and sank. The USS Arizona
(BB-39) was mortally wounded by an armor piercing bomb that ignited the ship's forward
ammunition magazine. The resulting explosion and fire killed 1,177 crewmen, the
greatest loss of life on any ship that day and about half the total number of Americans
killed. Many other ships suffered major damage.
The aftermath of that attack for the U.S. forces was that 2,403 men were killed,
1,178 military personnel and civilians wounded, twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet sunk or damaged, 188 aircraft destroyed, and 159 damaged. This attack was so
devastating for the U.S. with so many casualties because the multiple damages caused by
the bombings could not be handled and controlled. After this incident, which shocked the
American people, the U.S. entered World War II.
15
Figures 3, and 4 of that epoch illustrate fires resulting from the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
Figure 3. USS Arizona Burning at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (From Official
U.S. Navy Photograph, 1941)
16
Figure 4. Burning Ships after the Attack on Pearl Harbor (From Official U.S. Navy
Photograph, 1941)
2. USS Forrestal (CVA-59) Incident
The following information is based on the Master Thesis of Henry P. Stewart,

USN, 2004.
On July 29, 1967, one of the most severe catastrophes in recent naval history
happened aboard the USS Forrestal (CVA 59), one of the U.S Navy’s most modern
aircraft carriers, which was operating in waters off the coast of Vietnam. The USS
Forrestal was the first U.S. aircraft carrier specifically designed to operate jet aircraft and
was the first carrier the U.S. built after World War II.
The ship had a crew of around 5,500 men and was assigned to bomb targets in
North Vietnam with its aircraft. Each aircraft carried a full load of bombs, rockets, and
ammunition, and it had full fuel tanks. Also, during preparations for flight, many
crewmembers were working on the flight deck.
17
The USS Forrestal was underway preparing for a new strike and several aircraft
started their engines. Suddenly and without any warning, a missile was fired accidentally
due to an electrical power surge during the switch from external power to internal power
by an F-4 Phantom aircraft located on the flight deck. The missile hit a crewmember,
struck another aircraft passing through it without exploding to the opposite side of the
flight deck, and finally directed to the sea. Then, a significant amount of jet fuel spilled
from the broken aircraft’s fuel tank and ignited from the hot parts of the missile
remaining on the deck, causing a quick ignition of fire. The burning fuel from the aircraft
spilled and transferred to another aircraft stationed on the flight deck, and consequently
all these aircraft started to burn, spreading the fire rapidly.
After that, General Quarters was announced and all crewmembers fully manned
all dedicated positions in the ship’s damage control organization. All the necessary
measures were taken to set the ship’s proper material condition and prevent smoke and
fire from spreading throughout the ship, but the fire continued to spread quickly. The
high heat of the fire caused two bombs to explode on the flight deck a few minutes later,
severely damaging the ship and killing several sailors on the flight deck. In total, nine
bombs exploded on the flight deck, creating large holes in the flight deck and causing
burning fuel to traverse into the interior of the ship, including the living quarters directly
underneath the flight deck and the hangar deck below. The broken fuel tanks of some
other aircraft continuously fed the fire.
After firefighting spread below the flight deck for over twenty-four hours, the
crewmembers of the USS Forrestal finally succeeded in extinguishing all fires. The
casualties of this incident were significant and the results tragic. A total of 134 sailors
were killed in the fire, and 161 were injured. Furthermore, over twenty aircraft were
destroyed. This incident terminated the ship’s operations in the area. Also, the repairs
cost nearly $72 million (not including damage to aircraft) and took almost two years to be
completed.
Immediately after this disaster, a Manual of the Judge Advocate General

Investigation was ordered. The findings relative to firefighting training were the
following: (Department of the Navy, 1967)
18
• The normal damage control refresher – training period (REFTRA) was
shortened from six weeks to four weeks for the USS Forrestal prior to her
deployment
• Thirty-seven percent of the ship’s damage control personnel who attended
refresher training transferred prior to Forrestal’s deployment
• At the time of the fire, fifty-seven percent of the ship’s crewmembers had
attended firefighting school in the previous three years. The remaining
forty-three percent had not attended firefighting school in that time period
• Several fundamental training deficiencies and weaknesses in the crew’s
firefighting performance were identified as obstructing firefighting efforts.
Numerous personnel on the flight deck were unfamiliar with firefighting
procedures and equipment, and were unable to effectively contribute to the
firefighting efforts
• Flight deck firefighting training drills were inadequate
• The majority of the recommendations were focused on improving damage
control and firefighting training
• Personnel involved with aircraft should receive increased firefighting and
damage control training
• All personnel assigned to aircraft carriers (including air wing personnel)
should achieve basic qualifications in damage control and firefighting
before embarking on their ships
• The U.S. Navy should develop realistic exercises based on fires of the
magnitude experienced on the USS Forrestal, simulating the hazards of
live weapons and the loss of key personnel and equipment
• Emphasis on damage control training for officers and enlisted personnel
prior to reporting to their first ships should be given, and the capacity of
the fleet damage control training schools should be expanded
• The investigation provides strong evidence that many sailors died
needlessly on the USS Forrestal because of poor training
Figures 5, and 6 below, demonstrate the severity of Forrestal fire.
19
Figure 5. Fire Spreading on the USS Forrestal (From PH2 Mason, USN, 1967)
Figure 6. Firefighting on Board the USS Forrestal (From Official U.S. Navy
Photograph, 1967)
20
3. USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) Incident
Approximately eighteen months after the fire mishap on the USS Forrestal,
another severe naval fire accident occurred aboard the USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) on
January 14, 1969. Similar to the USS Forrestal’s previously described fire, a MK-32 Zuni
rocket loaded on a parked F-4 Phantom on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise exploded
after being accidentally ignited. The result of this incident was twenty-seven lives lost
and 344 people injured. “The damage to the ship was estimated to be just below $11
million and the cost of replacing the fifteen destroyed aircraft and associated aviation
equipment was estimated to be approximately $ 45.5 million” (Bardshar, 1969). Figures 7
and 8 below show the Enterprise fire.
The above investigation, which followed just after the accident, revealed that
“although serious firefighting equipment deficiencies existed, solid damage control
organization, training, and execution minimized casualties and limited the fire’s spread
and resulting damage” (Stewart, 2004). When the USS Enterprise’s fire happened, almost
the ninety-six percent of the ship’s crew had attended firefighting school in contrast to the
fifty percent of the USS Forrestal’s crew who had been trained in firefighting when
Forrestal’s fire occurred.
Figure 7. Fire on Board the USS Enterprise (From USN, 1969)
21
Figure 8. Firefighting Efforts aboard the USS Enterprise (From Leonhardt, 1969)
4. USS Stark (FFG-31) Incident
The USS Stark was deployed in the Persian Gulf in 1987. On May 17, 1987, an
Iraqi Mirage F-1 aircraft was heading into the Persian Gulf along the Saudi Arabian
coast. This aircraft was detected by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)
plane operating in the air over Saudi Arabia. The frigate USS Stark, which was operating
in the Persian Gulf, also detected the Mirage at a distance of 200 miles. Since Iraq and
Iran were at war, their aircraft routinely flew over the Gulf. For that reason, the USS
Stark was not particularly alarmed. Furthermore, that day some Iraqi aircraft had fired
missiles into a Cypriot tanker, disabling the ship, but no attack on an American vessel
had occurred.
Following the required procedure, the USS Stark sent two radio messages
requesting identification of the unknown Mirage without receiving any response.
Suddenly, the Mirage aircraft changed its direction and launched two Exocet air-to-
22
surface missiles under unknown circumstances. Unfortunately, for some reason, neither
the AWACS plane nor the sophisticated monitoring system of the USS Stark detected
those missiles.
The result was that both missiles hit the American vessel. The first one hit the
ship on its port side, opening a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the hull before ripping through
the crew’s quarters but failing to detonate, leaving in its path flaming rocket fuel burning
at 3,500°F. The second missile hit almost at the same point, left a three-by-four-meter
hole, and exploded in the crew quarters. The fire burned for almost a day, incinerating the
crew’s quarters, the radar room, and the combat information center.
In the aftermath of that tragic incident, one-quarter of the crew was incapacitated.
Twenty-nine crewmembers were killed immediately, eight more died later, and twenty-
one were injured. The ship was repaired at a cost of $142 million. (Manning, 2001)
Figures 9, 10, and 11 below, demonstrate the magnitude of the damage in the USS
Stark
Figure 9. The USS Stark Listing to Port One Day after she was hit by Two-Exocet
Missiles (From Navy Command, 1987)
23
Figure 10. The USS Stark on fire (From Navy Command, 1987)
Figure 11. A View of the External Damage to the Stark’s Port Side (From Navy
Command, 1987 )
24
5. USS Cole (DDG-67) Incident
The terrorist bomb attack on the destroyer Cole on October 12, 2000, was a
watershed moment in modern navy history. It was also a wake-up call on the need for
better force protection, damage control training, intelligence sharing, shipboard
equipment and mass-casualty response (McMichael, 2010).
On October 12, 2000, the destroyer USS Cole was in Aden harbor for a routine
fuel stop. While refueling, a small vessel containing explosives approached the port side
of the ship and crushed against the hull. An explosion occurred, creating a forty-by-forty-
foot hole in the ship's port side as shown in Figure 12 below. The explosion hit the ship's
galley while crewmembers were taking their lunch. Significant flooding occurred and it
took many hours to control the damage.
Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine were injured in the blast. Timely and
effective damage control skills learned by the crew prevented the ship from sinking.This
attack was the deadliest against a U.S. Naval vessel since the Iraqi attack on the USS
Stark (FFG-31) on May 17, 1987.
Figure 12. USS Cole After the Attack (From USN, 2000)
25
D. CONCLUSIONS
The above mentioned incidents are only some representative examples from a
plethora of disasters that happened over time because of uncontrolled damages and fires.
They are strong proof that damage control and firefighting are diachronically critical and
vital, primarily for human life safety and, secondly, for material preservation and
readiness. Moreover, they provide strong evidence that the basic concept of damage
control and firefighting remains constant as there is continuous improvement in the
technology and evolution of sophisticated firefighting systems.
In conclusion, damage control and firefighting must be encountered with major

attention and importance. Consequently, a permanent, continuous and advanced damage
control and firefighting training program is imperative and should be provided both to
military and civilian personnel involved with firefighting generally.
E. TRAINING IN THE U.S NAVY
The following information in this section is extracted from the Standard

Organization and Regulations of the U.S Navy, OPNAVINST 3120.32C, 1994.
1. Importance of Training
The training of personnel to operate and maintain their equipment/systems

is a prime factor affecting the operational readiness, combat effectiveness,
and performance of the command. The U.S. Navy training can be
characterized as follows:
• In-rate, shore-based maintenance training

• In-rate, operator-basic training usually accomplished ashore
• Individual watch station qualification completed in the fleet unit
• Systems training for operators/teams and total integrated-systems
training (e.g., damage control, combat systems). While subsystem
basic training is normally provided ashore, proficiency training
should be accomplished in the fleet unit
• General military training (GMT) conducted both ashore and in
fleet units.
26
• Ship-wide training accomplished through drills, such as general
quarters and exercises. This training incorporates the skills
achieved in the above categories and hones the unit’s overall
combat effectiveness
2. Three Basic Features of an Effective Unit Training Program
• Compatibility in which the training program works within the

organization’s framework and schedule
• Evaluation and instruction: the training program requires
instruction of personnel and evaluation of their individual progress
and ability to function efficiently and safely as a team. Effective
training is accomplished only when learning occurs. The surest
way for learning to occur is through high-quality instruction.
Evaluation of learning must rely on standardization (e.g.,
authorized technical manuals and references)
• Analysis and improvement: the analysis of training effectiveness
includes observing the performance of groups and individuals,
comparing results with standard criteria, and recognizing
deficiencies and methods for improvement
3. Requirements for Effective Training
• Dynamic instruction: the instructor’s preparation and presentation

must be professional and reflect a thorough knowledge of the
subject, tailored to the knowledge level of the trainee
• Positive leadership: persons in authority must show an active
interest in the training program, which includes attendance and
active participation in training sessions
• Personal interest: trainers responsible for the training program
should set realistic goals and monitor an individual’s rate of
progress
• Quality control: training should be reinforced by questioning
individuals on items that they are credited with knowing or
requiring a demonstration of skills they have attained
• Technical support: supervisors must ensure that manuals, technical
publications, operating procedures, safety precautions, and other
references required for training are available and current
• Regular schedule: instruction must be scheduled and held regularly
27
4. Damage Control and Firefighting Training in the U.S. Navy
Damage control and firefighting are a crucial part of the U.S. Navy's training.
There is nothing more dangerous than a fire at sea. In the Navy, every crewmember is a
firefighter and should be trained continuously and effectively. Generally, damage control
and firefighting training consist of three phases (http://www.navy.com):
a. Basic Training
Basic damage control training is taught to recruits during the basic

Seamanship phase of recruit training. As a part of basic seamanship
instruction, recruits receive five days of classroom and hands-on training
in shipboard firefighting. They also receive instruction on combating
shipboard flooding, damage control communications and nuclear,
biological and chemical attack survival. Upon successful completion of
the training, sailors possess the basic skills necessary to become effective
members of damage control parties when assigned to the fleet.
b. Continuing Education
All sailors assigned to ships in the fleet receive continuing education in

damage control by attending an on-site Damage Control Academy soon
after assignment to a ship. As one example, the academy that is conducted
by damage control trainers aboard the USS Wasp is five days of classroom
and hands-on instruction in areas that include basic firefighting skills and
how to put on and wear a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). The
training is mandatory for all newly assigned commissioned officers and
enlisted sailors and satisfies the requirements for basic damage control
qualification.
c. Specialized Training
Shipboard damage control training is conducted by specialists trained in

the U.S. Navy occupational field, Damage Controlman. Sailors holding
the specialty provide formal classroom and practical training to other
sailors at training centers and training groups. Having the benefit of
advanced training in damage control, these specialists serve as advisers to
commanders on how to integrate and organize damage control functions.
Senior enlisted personnel holding the specialty perform managerial, safety
and support services in the areas of damage control, firefighting and
chemical, biological and nuclear defense.
28
F. SIMULATION AND TRAINING
Simulations have dominated the training field in the last few decades.
Decreasing military budgets, reduced training infrastructure, and

increasing complexity of weapon systems and missions mandate the
exploitation of innovative advanced training technologies. In recent years,
training developers have recognized the potential of virtual reality, often
called virtual environments, as a flexible and effective training medium.
(Hays, 1997)
Simulation plays a key role and has been used for many years for educational
purposes in the training of civilian and military personnel. When it is expensive or simply
too dangerous for the trainees to use real equipment in the real world, simulation provides
an alternate and effective solution for training. Jones (2008) states that simulations
provide the U.S. Navy with the opportunity to safely, effectively, efficiently, and
economically train sailors at all levels in most aspects of their profession, starting with
individual skills as the fundamental building blocks and then assembling progressively
larger teams. High fidelity simulators allow the crews to experiment with new tactics and
techniques, or in new environments. In addition, he states that the Navy has invested
heavily in providing the correct level of simulation fidelity for each application.
Simulation brings many advantages to the training community (Jones, 2008):
• Transforms the learning process from a passive to an active experience
• Provides a method to verify that each team member is able to perform
his/her role before integrating with the team
• Provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate mastery of skills, thus
increasing the students’ confidence in their ability
• Provides immediate feedback to the instructor, allowing the instructor to
accelerate or decelerate depending on the students’ comprehension
• Provides an opportunity for students to experiment beyond the scenarios
presented in the curriculum
Training simulations consist of three categories:

• Live simulation – a simulation involving real people operating real
systems
29
• Virtual simulation – a simulation involving real people operating
simulated systems (e.g., Figure 14)
• Constructive simulation – a simulation involving simulated people
operating simulated systems
Regarding firefighting training, it can be easily understood that the use of a “live”
simulation to train real personnel with the application of real fires in real environments is
expensive and very dangerous both for the trainee’s and for the preservation of
materials/infrastructures, since a real fire is always a major risk. For these reasons,
modern navies and civilian factors utilize “virtual” simulations (firefighting trainers-
platforms) or “constructive” (computer-based, non-real time) simulations to train their
personnel.
In this way, many simulator platforms/trainers have been developed and used in
various training centers in the U.S. and worldwide. Furthermore, another very popular
training tool for firefighting is “serious games.” For instance, in the Recruit Training
Command (RTC), Great Lakes, Illinois, U.S. Navy recruits are using video computer
games as a training tool to prepare them to navigate around a ship, stop compartment
flooding and fight fires. The game is called Virtual Environments for Ship and Shore
Experiential Learning (VESSEL). It is an immersive, game-based training environment
that teaches damage control skills, shipboard communication, and shipboard navigation
to U.S. Navy recruits without the costs and risks associated with live training. A sample
of this application is shown in the Figure 13 below:
30
Figure 13. Ship Interior Presented by the VESSEL Game (From Raytheon BBN
Technologies, 2011)
Figure 14. U.S Firefighting Trainer, an Example of a “Virtual” Simulation
31
32
III. FIREFIGHTING TRAINING PROGRAM ANALYSES
In this section, the author presents training programs currently used either by
modern navies or by the civilian sector. The purpose is to compare and contrast those
programs, and to find commonalities and differences that could be used as a tool to
evaluate the U.S. damage control and firefighting training program. Moreover, useful
information could be extracted that could improve and enhance the various training
programs.
A. U.S. NAVY’S DAMAGE CONTROL AND FIREFIGHTING TRAINING
According to the Department of the Navy, Commander Naval Surface Forces

(COMNAVSURFORINST 3502.1B) (2007), and the Catalog of Navy Training Courses
(CANTRAC) (2011), the U.S. Navy firefighting training courses consist of the following:
• Firefighting Courses: general shipboard firefighting required by all
hands afloat, prior to assignment and every six years
• Aircraft Firefighting Course: required by flight deck teams and General
Quarters teams near the flight deck and hangar deck, prior to assignment,
prior to deployment and every three years
• Helicopter Firefighting Team Training: required for all helicopter
firefighting teams, every twenty-four months and whenever a forty percent
or greater turnover has occurred
• Shipboard Firefighting Team Training: required for damage control
repair teams and in- port emergency teams, every twenty-four months, and
whenever a forty percent or greater turnover has occurred
• Advanced Shipboard Firefighting: required for On-scene leaders and all
personnel assigned to MHC51/MCM class ships
In this section, the author briefly describes the courses offered by the Center for
Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego, focusing on damage control and
firefighting courses and considering them as representative training systems of the U.S.
Navy in that area. The Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego,
provides the following schools/courses with their corresponding duration and enrollment
numbers:
33
• General Shipboard Firefighting – 1 day with 48 students
• Advanced Shipboard Firefighting- 4 days with 48 students
• Aviation Firefighting - 1 day with 60 students
• Aviation Firefighting Team Evaluation - 1 day with 24 students
• Shipboard Aviation Firefighting - 1 day with 60 students
• General Shipboard Firefighting with Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) - 1 day with 48 students
• Shipboard Damage Control Trainer – 1 day with 48 students
Officers and enlisted personnel in all pay-grades participate in all of the courses
mentioned above. Each year, the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San
Diego, offers 245 schools in total and approximately 1,500 students are trained in all
courses. The normal schedule of the courses changes dramatically and becomes more
intensive in case of any hot episode, conflict or war.
1. General Shipboard Firefighting Course (J-495-0412)
a. Objective of the Course
According to Catalog of Navy Training Courses (CANTRAC) (2011), and

the Department of the Navy (2007) Course Master Schedule Binder, the objective of this
course is to provide instruction and evaluation to officers and enlisted personnel in team-
oriented firefighting tactics and procedures. Students receive training in high-
temperature, high-intensity, and multi-space fires. Graduates will possess the necessary
skill sets to allow immediate integration into shipboard repair parties.
b. Prerequisites
All participants in this course must be physically qualified to handle fire

hoses, to wear full firefighting gear and to work with various damage control equipment
in hot, humid and stressful environments. Students should be medically screened by their
parent command no earlier than ninety-six hours prior to arrival at firefighting school.
34
Medical screening shall be completed according to the existing regulations. This is to
ensure individuals are medically qualified to safely participate in the course.
c. Safety Risks and Hazardous Material
This course is characterized as moderate/high risk. Special emphasis is

placed on strict compliance with published safety precautions and personnel awareness of
potential hazards during live firefighting with instructors and students. Strict adherence to
approved standard operating procedures and a pre-mishap plan is mandatory. Each
individual is responsible for knowing, understanding, and observing all applicable safety
precautions.
d. Course Schedule
This course is repeated each year for every crewmember, or when

transferring from ship to ship, or whenever a Navy ship formally requests it to maintain
proficiency.
2. Advanced Shipboard Firefighting Course (J-495-0419)
The course is offered twelve times per year with forty-eight students attending
each session.
According to the Catalog of Navy Training Courses (CANTRAC) (2011), and the
Department of the Navy (2007) Course Master Schedule Binder, the purpose of this
course is to provide supervisory fire-party personnel with training in advanced
firefighting techniques and effective management of on-scene personnel in a shipboard
environment. Another objective of the course is to provide practical experience with
various damage control and firefighting equipment. This course provides classroom
instruction in advanced firefighting procedures and hands-on practical training and
experience as a repair locker leader, on-scene leader, investigator, team leader,
35
nozzleman, hoseman, plugman, and plotter. Students are required to combat different
classes of fires under varied scenarios using different methods and equipment.
b. Prerequisites
Participants should have graduated first from the General Shipboard

Firefighting Course (J-495-0412). They also must have at least six months of obligated
service remaining and must have had previous live fire training. Students must be
physically qualified to handle charged fire hoses, wear full firefighting gear including the
SCBA, and work with various damage control equipment in hot, humid and stressful
environments. Students must be medically screened by their parent command no earlier
than ninety-six hours prior to arrival to the fire house according to the existing
regulations. This is to ensure individuals are medically qualified to safely participate in
the course.
c. Safety Risks and Hazardous Material
This course is characterized as moderate/high risk. Special emphasis is

placed on strict compliance with published safety precautions and personnel awareness of
potential hazards during live firefighting with instructors and students. Strict adherence to
approved standard operating procedures and a pre-mishap plan is mandatory. Each
individual is responsible for knowing, understanding, and observing all applicable safety
precautions.
d. Course Schedule
This course satisfies the six-year live firefighting requirement (Catalog of

Navy Training Courses (CANTRAC), 2011), but it can be repeated as often as required
or whenever a ship requests it to maintain proficiency.
3. Aviation Firefighting
The objective of this course is to exercise an experienced and organized helicopter

firefighting team assigned to such ships as a Landing Platform Dock (LPD) and smaller.
36
4. Aviation Firefighting Team Evaluation
The objective of this course is to evaluate an experienced and organized

helicopter firefighting team assigned to such ships as an LPD and smaller.
5. Shipboard Aviation Firefighting
The objective of this course is to provide instruction to officers and enlisted

personnel assigned to aviation-designated ships (LPD/Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA)
and larger) to include all air-capable ships (Frigates (FFG), Destroyers (DDG), and
equivalent) in aircraft firefighting.
6. General Shipboard Firefighting with SCBA
The objective of this course is to provide instruction to AIRFOR, Coast Guard

Officers and enlisted personnel in firefighting equipment and procedures, and to prepare
them for qualification as members of a Shipboard Damage Control Organization.
B. FIREFIGHTING TRAINING IN FOREIGN NAVIES AND THE CIVILIAN

SECTOR
In this part, the author considers it is essential to present some other firefighting
training programs used by modern Navies and civilian fire departments, so as to obtain a
global idea of firefighting training.
1. Hellenic Navy’s Firefighting Training
Damage control and firefighting play a very important role in the Hellenic Navy,
too. Since 1951, when the Hellenic Damage Control School was established, it has
provided continuous training to ship crewmembers and to Navy personnel. Following
needs for increased and more effective training, almost four years ago the Hellenic Navy
purchased and installed a modern firefighting simulator in the facilities of its Damage
Control School in order to train crews and profit from the advantages of simulation
technology.
37
Although the damage control facilities and the Hellenic Navy, respectively, are
significantly smaller than the U.S. Navy, a reference to the firefighting training plan
currently used in the Hellenic Damage Control School would be useful to make. The
following information is based on Hellenic’s Navy, Naval Education Administration,
Damage Control Training Regulations (2007).
The Hellenic Damage Control School provides the following schools:

• Damage control 1: Shipboard firefighting for ship’s fire parties personnel–
3 days, at least 10 students, and at most 15
• Damage control 2: Shipboard firefighting for new crewmembers aboard
ships and students of Naval Academies–2 days, at least 10 students, and
at most 20
• Damage control 3: Firefighting for ashore service personnel–3 days, at
least 10 students, and at most 20
• Damage control 4: Firefighting for Hellenic Navy’s ashore fire stations–5
days, at least 10 students, and at most 20
• Damage control 5: Firefighting for fire and smoke simulator trainers–20
days, at least 8 students, and at most 12
• Damage control 6: Ship’s fire parties firefighting team evaluation–1 day,
at most 20 students
• Damage control 7:Basic firefighting apparatus use and maintenance–2
days, at least ten students, and at most twenty
a. Selection and Training of Qualified Instructors
The instructors / trainers of the Hellenic Damage Control School are

selected after successfully completing the “Damage Control 5” course in the same
facilities. The duration of that training is twenty days.
b. Objective of the “Damage Control 5” Course
The objective of this course is to provide candidate instructors the required

knowledge, both theoretical and practical, to utilize all the equipment of the Damage
Control School in order to succeed as trainers.
38
c. Prerequisites
• The participants should have mastered basic damage control

knowledge and have been members of ship fire repair parties for at
least four years
• Instructor’s age should not exceed thirty-five years
• Participants should meet medical requirements that confirm their
proper physical health
d. Training Syllabus with Specific Learning Objectives
The training provided is given in two parts: the theoretical part, which is
developed in thirty-nine class-lecture hours using multimedia; and the practical part,
which is six usage-demonstration hours of employing portable firefighting equipment and
fire hoses in specific, dedicated and fully equipped areas (demo area and hose range). In
the practical part, 95 hours of training scenarios in the fire simulator platform take place.
e. Description of Curricula/Training Scenarios
The curriculum is equivalent to the Shipboard Firefighting Course for

ship’s fire parties personnel described in the next section (Damage Control 1), but more
advanced, intense, and covering significantly more material in firefighting than the
Damage Control 1 Course. The instruction mode and evaluation methods are also similar.
2. Shipboard Firefighting Course for Ship’s Fire Parties Personnel

(Damage Control 1)
In this section, the author analyzes the Shipboard Firefighting Course, taking into
consideration that it is the most representative and an equivalent course to the “Advanced
Shipboard Firefighting Course” in the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San
Diego. It is similar since it is addressed to a ship’s fire repair party’s personnel mainly
responsible for firefighting and damage control aboard ships.
39
The objective of this course is to improve the efficiency of the fire repair
party’s personnel aboard Navy ships using portable firefighting equipment, personnel
protective equipment, re-entry techniques in spaces on fire, and firefighting
tactics/procedures, as well as utilizing and profiting mainly from the fire simulator
platform training capabilities.
b. Prerequisites
• The participants should have at least six months previous service in

Navy ships, of which at least three months should be as members
of fire repair parties
• Participation priority is given to ship crewmembers who have not
participated in the same course in the last three years
• Participants should meet the medical requirements that confirm
their proper physical health to uninterruptedly participate in the
course
• The number of participants is limited to fifteen and in no case at
course outset should enrollment be less than ten. In addition, if
during the training session the number of participants is reduced to
less than five, the course is interrupted and the remaining students
are allowed to participate in the next scheduled course.
c. Safety Precautions
Personnel safety is the primary concern during firefighting training.

Therefore, the training in the Hellenic Damage Control School is designed in such a way
so as to minimize the likelihood of dangers and accidents, especially during the practical
phase of training in the fire simulator. For this reason, students first receive a safety
precaution presentation, familiarization with portable firefighting equipment, and
personnel protective equipment. Secondly, practical training in scalable difficulty is
provided. The objective of the briefing and debriefing done before and after the training
scenarios, with available time for questions, is to maximize each student’s safety and
correctly execute and assimilate the scenarios.
40
All firefighting equipment is periodically checked by the school trainers
based on the operating manuals before its use, and in case of any malfunction it is
replaced immediately. Finally, during practical training in the fire simulator, students
may ask for training to stop (training time-out) for emergency reasons.
d. Curriculum Development Method
(1) Training Syllabus with Specific Learning Objectives. The

training provided is given in two parts:
• First is the theoretical part, which is developed in four
class-lecture hours using multimedia, and in three usage-
demonstration hours using portable firefighting equipment
and fire hoses in specifically dedicated and fully equipped
areas (demo area and hose range). Table 2 illustrates
analytically the theoretical phase of the course:
Syllabus Lecture Training Manuals Multimedia Remarks
Hours Infrastructure
Lecture 1. Students’ reception- 0.5 1. Fire simulator Power-Point
1 briefing operational manual projection
1.1 Students 2. Fire simulator
responsibilities ground plan
1.2 Safety precautions 3. Damage Control
during training School training
scenarios manual
2. Training scenarios 0.5 Power-Point
2.1 Fire simulator projection
capabilities
2.2 Training scenarios
description
Lecture 1. Personnel protective 1 1. Firefighter Power-Point
2 equipment protective clothing projection
1.1 Fire suit, helmet, boots, user instruction, safety
gloves and training guide
1.2 Breathing device by 2. Interspiro operating
Interspiro instructions
41
2. Portable firefighting 1 Ship Firefighting BR
equipment 4007
Lecture 1. Portable firefighting 1 Ship Firefighting BR Demo area and In those
3 equipment use 4007 hose range, areas,
demonstration fully-equipped training is
1.1 Fire extinguisher use areas provided
and refill without
2. Fire hose use 2 Ship Firefighting BR Demo area and use of
demonstration 4007 hose range, breathing
2.1 Fire hose operation and fully-equipped apparatus.
use areas Students
2.2 Re-entry techniques are
demonstration in space on prepared
fire for the
2.3 Fire extinguishers, fire scenario
hoses, nozzles, foam execution
system demonstration in the fire
simulator,
familiarizi
ng with all
the
equipment
they will
use.
3. Fire physiology 1 Power-Point
3.1 Fire spread in closed projection
space
3.2 Backdraft and flashover
definitions
Table 2. Theoretical Course Description
42
• Second is the practical part, which is developed in fourteen
hours of training scenarios in the fire simulator platform as
shown in Table 3:
Syllabus Lecture Training Manuals Multimedia Remarks
Hours Infrastructure
Session 1. Interspiro Breathing 2 1. Interspiro Fire simulator
1 Device operating instructions
1.1 Operation and use
2. Horizontal re-entry 5 1. Ship Firefighting Fire simulator

in space on fire BR 4007
2.1 Fire simulator 2. Damage Control
capabilities School training
2.2 Training scenarios scenarios manual
description
3. Vertical re-entry in 7 Fire simulator
space on fire
3.1 Initial scenario
execution-remarks-
corrections- scenario re-
execution
3.2 Students’ general
debriefing- completion
of training evaluation
questionnaires
Table 3. Simulator Training Description
(2) Documents Developed and Produced in Support of This

Course
• Fire simulator operational manual
• Fire simulator ground plan
• Damage Control School training scenario manual
43
• Firefighter protective clothing user instruction, safety and
training guides
• Interspiro breathing device operating instructions
• Ship Firefighting BR 4007
(3) Description of Curricula/Training Scenarios
• Student reception-briefing
• Student responsibilities
• Safety precautions during training
• Fire simulator capabilities
• Training scenarios description
• Personnel protective equipment: Fire suit, helmet, boots,
gloves, Interspiro breathing device demonstration
• Fire hose operation and use
• Re-entry techniques demonstration in space on fire
• Fire extinguishers, fire hoses, nozzles, foam system
demonstration
• Fire spread in closed space
• Definition of backdraft and flashover term
(4) The Primary Mode of Instruction. The primary mode of
instruction is group-based, consisting of field exercises. The trainees demonstrate subject
mastery by successfully applying knowledge and skills to practical exercises.
e. Evaluation
Students are evaluated individually on the second and third days of the
course in parallel with their participation in training scenarios in the fire simulator. They
are graded in the total of duty watch responsibilities by rotating during the re-executions
of the training scenarios, and based on pre-existing student evaluation sheets. Grades are
delivered on a scale of “A” for excellent, “B” for very good, “C” for good, “D” for fair
and “E” for fail. The total of the two separate grades each student receives are then
averaged.
44
If a student fails, he or she may retake the course in the future, but only
once. A second failure will result in permanent rejection without having the right to
participate in the same course in the future. This evaluation concept is applied to all
courses of the Hellenic Damage Control School.
3. United Kingdom Royal Navy’s Firefighting Training
An equivalent of, the U.S. Navy “Advanced Shipboard Firefighting Course”, is

the Phoenix CBRNBC (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Damage
Control) School, the UK’s Damage Control School for the Royal Navy.
All Royal Navy personnel, independent of specialization or seniority,

receive firefighting training before joining their ships. The courses are
theoretical and practical instruction lasts from between two days to one
week, depending on whether they are basic, intermediate or advanced
courses. Classroom teaching includes a wide variety of firefighting themes
such as equipment, personal protection, breathing apparatuses, fire
containment and duty-watch responsibilities.
In the practical instruction part, “Fire in the Engine Room” training is

provided using eight highly sophisticated firefighting training units
(FFTUs). These units are three floored, propane-gas-fueled fire simulators
providing the instructors complete control, through a control room, of the
fire and environmental conditions faced by students. The areas in those
units are exact replicas of what exists in Navy ships, such as the
machinery control room, engine room, galley and passageways. “The
FFTUs, owned by Flagship Firefighting Training Ltd, were opened in
January 2001 and provide world-class facilities for the students to learn
and practice fire-fighting techniques. (Crown, 2009)
45
Figure 15. Fire in the Engine Room in the Phoenix CBRNBC School (From Crown,
2009)
4. U.S. Navy’s Damage Control and Firefighting Training Program

versus Hellenic’s Navy Firefighting Training
In this part, the author considers that it would be beneficial to make a comparison
between the two pre-described and similar damage control/firefighting programs, the
“Shipboard Firefighting Course for Ship’s Fire Parties Personnel (Damage Control 1)” in
the Hellenic Damage Control School, and the U.S. “Advanced Shipboard Firefighting” in
the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego. This information is
illustrated in the following Table 4 below:
Course Advanced Shipboard Firefighting Shipboard Firefighting

Description Course Course for Ship’s Fire
Parties Personnel (Damage
(J-495-0419)
Control 1)
Navy U.S. Navy Hellenic Navy
Participants Officers and enlisted personnel in all pay- Ships’ fire parties personnel, at
grades. Up to 48 students. least 10 students, and at most
15.
Duration 4 days 3 days
46
Qualified Instructor’s duty is designated to a Graduates from the “Damage
Instructors maximum of thirty-six months. They Control 5” course (twenty
should have graduated from the same days) in the Hellenic Damage
course (four days) as a student prior Control School.
teaching.
Curriculum Theoretical phase, which is developed in Theoretical part, which is

Development two class-lecture hours using multimedia developed in four class-lecture
Method classrooms. Practical phase that is hours using multimedia, and in
delivered in twenty-two hours of training three usage-demonstration
scenarios in the simulator platforms. hours using portable
firefighting equipment and fire
hoses in specifically dedicated
and fully equipped areas
(demo area and hose range).
Practical part, which is

developed in fourteen hours of
training scenarios in the fire
simulator platform.
Mode of The primary mode of instruction is group- The primary mode of

Instruction based, and consists of field exercises. The instruction is group-based,
trainees demonstrate subject mastery by consisting of field exercises.
successfully applying knowledge and skills The trainees demonstrate
to practical exercises. subject mastery by
successfully applying
knowledge and skills to
practical exercises.
Course Objective To provide supervisory fire-party To improve the efficiency of

personnel with training in advanced the fire repair party’s
firefighting techniques and effective personnel aboard Navy ships
management of on-scene personnel in a using portable firefighting
shipboard environment. Furthermore, to equipment, personnel
47
provide practical experience with various protective equipment, re-entry
damage control and firefighting equipment. techniques in spaces on fire,
and firefighting
tactics/procedures, as well as
utilizing and profiting mainly
from the fire simulator
platform training capabilities.
Prerequisites Participants should have graduated first Participants should have at

from the General Shipboard Firefighting least six months previous
Course (J-495-0412). They also must have service in Navy ships, of
at least six months of obligated service which at least three months
remaining and must have had previous live should be as members of fire
fire training. Students must be medically repair parties. Participation
screened/qualified to safely participate in priority is given to ship
the course. crewmembers who have not
participated in the same course
in the last three years. Also,
participants should meet the
medical requirements that
confirm their proper physical
health to uninterruptedly
participate in the course.
Course Schedule Satisfies the six-year live firefighting Every three years or when
requirement but it can be repeated as often required to maintain
as required or whenever a ship requests it proficiency.
to maintain proficiency.
Evaluation The course is “pass” or “fail.” Students do Students are evaluated

not have written exams or oral response individually in parallel with
tests. Shipboard damage control and their participation in training
firefighting courses are evaluated with scenarios in the fire simulator.
individual skills and as a team by They are graded in the total of
instructors with the method of observation. duty watch responsibilities by
48
rotating during the re-
executions of the training
scenarios, and based on pre-
existing student evaluation
sheets. Grades are delivered on
a scale of “A” for excellent,
“B” for very good, “C” for
good, “D” for fair and “E” for
fail. The total of the two
separate grades each student
receives are then averaged.
Table 4. U.S. and Hellenic Navies’ Damage Control/Firefighting Program

Comparison
5. Civilian Firefighting, U.S. Fire Administration – National Fire

Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
At this point, the author chooses to describe the basics of the National Fire
Academy’s Training Plan as it is the basis and the starting point of civilian firefighting in
the U.S.
The mission of the National Fire Academy is to “provide national leadership to

foster a solid foundation for the fire and emergency services stakeholders in prevention,
preparedness, and response” (U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Academy, 2010).
The National Fire Academy conducts specialized training courses and advanced
management programs of national impact. Thus, a plethora of curricula is provided,
ranging from six to ten days. The most representative are the following:
• Executive Development
• Management Science
• Emergency Medical Services
• Incident Management
• Planning and Information Management
49
• Hazardous Material
• Fire Prevention
• Training Programs
• Volunteer Incentive Program
• Distance Learning Courses
• Train-the-Trainer Program
The National Fire Academy takes advantage of technology and also offers online
training in order to deliver more instruction opportunities to students. “Interactive courses
are available at no charge to the general public as well as to the fire service” (U.S. Fire
Administration, National Fire Academy, 2010).
a. Mandatory Prerequisite for all National Academy Courses
For alignment purposes, it is required that all National Fire Academy

candidates complete assigned training courses online before arriving at the Academy.
Physical requirements must be met for successful acceptance. Furthermore, students
should be familiar with Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint since many classes use
these tools.
b. Evaluation
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, the National Fire Academy has
established a complete evaluation program to define the degree of student satisfaction in
coordination with the training experience gained and as well as measure how this training
influences a student’s performance on the job. At the end of each training session,
students are administered an end-of-course evaluation to rate their satisfaction concerning
that session.
National Fire Academy courses are also evaluated by students and their
supervisors via the Academy’s Long Term Evaluation Program. Four to six months after
students have returned to their jobs, the Academy invites students and supervisors to
complete an online evaluation process. In this way, the Academy can identify what parts
50
of the training have been transferred to the student’s job and, finally, if any difference in
the reduction of fires or human casualties due to fire-related hazards occurred.
c. Simulation in Firefighting Training
Most of the courses combine classroom instruction and a hands-on

learning approach in the Academy’s Fire Protection Systems Laboratories, which are
different kinds of simulators. Some of the simulators at the Academy’s facilities are the
following:
• Ranch House
• Townhouse
• Mansion
• Casper Hall Dorm
• Strip Mall Hostage
• Nursing Home
• Urban Interface Fire
Figure 16. National Fire Academy’s Simulation Laboratory (From U.S. Fire
Administration, 2011)
51
Figure 17. Exercise Controllers Running a Simulation in the Laboratory (From U.S.
Fire Administration, 2011)
The Simulation Laboratory is designed to expand the knowledge, skills,

and abilities of students in the Incident Management Curriculum by
reinforcing lessons learned in the classroom through a series of practical
simulation exercises.
The laboratory is designed to provide students with "real-world" training

using a variety of emergency situations, including incidents such as
dwelling fires, commercial and large structure fires, catastrophic disasters
and major emergency events, such as hazardous material releases and
mass casualty incidents. (U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire
Academy, 2010)
52
IV. PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH OBJECTIVES,
METHODOLOGY
A. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This thesis focuses on the following objectives:
Primary Objective:
• Evaluate the damage control and firefighting training programs provided
at the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego, using
simulator platforms, as they are currently used at that San Diego location
Secondary Objectives:
• Identify whether this training meets its goals and objectives
• Identify whether trainees and the U.S. Navy benefit from this training
B. METHODOLOGY
In order to evaluate the damage control and firefighting programs, the author
applied the systematic training design, development and operational evaluation methods.
Specifically, the methodology consists of the following three pillars:
• “Field observation” and the author’s personal active participation in the
“Shipboard Damage Control Trainer” and “Shipboard Firefighting”
courses as a student
• Examination of the training system components (syllabus, learning
objectives, instructor qualification standards and instructor training,
training system resources, training evaluation criteria, performance
measurement methods, and trainee’s simulation performance scores)
• Survey administration by obtaining instructor and student subjective
ratings and opinions about the training system
The author employed the method of “Field Observation” in this study. In this
manner, he visited the Center for Naval Engineering, Learning Site, San Diego, and
participated as a student in the “Shipboard Damage Control Trainer” and “Shipboard
53
Firefighting” training courses which took place from June 13-17, 2011. The purpose of
the visit was to observe and take part actively in ongoing team training during simulated
damage control and firefighting exercises/drills. Thus, the author was able to gain insight
into damage control and firefighting training programs using simulator platforms.
The primary mode of instruction is group-based, and consists of field exercises.

The trainees demonstrate subject mastery by successfully applying knowledge and skills
to practical exercises. Thus, each course consists of two phases: the theoretical phase,
which is developed in classrooms, and the practical phase that is delivered in simulator
platforms. The training provided at those facilities is practical rather than theoretical,
since only a small amount of time is spent on classrooms; in contrast, all the remaining
time was focused on executing training scenarios and drills in simulators. The cycle of
instruction is conducted as follows:
a. Theoretical Phase
The theoretical phase is delivered in classrooms using audiovisual material

with PowerPoint projections and to present the basic damage control and firefighting
equipment and their use. Analytically, the theoretical instruction covers the following:
• A refresher to students and crews of the basic training they had
already received in their basic training and on their ships
• Students’ preparation for the practical phase in simulators by
demonstrating all the required damage control and firefighting
equipment and their handling
• Information regarding policies, operational procedures and
techniques during the upcoming training scenarios
• Presentation of the safety precautions and restrictions during the
real drills on simulators
b. Simulator Platform Briefing
All participants are given a safety briefing and receive instructions

regarding the simulation exercises, including assignment of team member roles,
responsibilities, task performance requirements and expectations for the damage control
and firefighting exercises. Especially for familiarizing purposes, instructors guide
54
students into the simulator compartments before the start of the practical phase in order to
demonstrate to them all the spaces of the simulator. All the scenarios and methods of
correct execution are explained analytically as well.
Finally, emphasis is given to all students regarding the “training time-out”

procedure, which is the emergency stoppage of the drills and shutdown of the simulator
in case of an emergency and can be applied by pushing the emergency stop buttons
located inside and outside each compartment of the simulator.
c. Simulator Platforms - Trainers
In the facilities of the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San
Diego, there are five simulator platforms -one for damage control and four for
firefighting training.
First, the damage control simulator or “wet trainer” shown in the Figure
18 below is a two-story concrete structure including holes in bulkheads, ruptured
pipelines, and almost all situations that can cause flooding aboard a ship. Students are
exposed to water leaks from pressurized ruptured fire–main pipelines within those
confined spaces, which simulate various ship compartments.
Figure 18. Damage Control - “Wet Trainer” Simulator
55
Second, there are four live fire simulators-trainers. Two of the four
simulators address Class A, B, and C fires. The first one—the “Basic Firefighting
Trainer”—is a single-story concrete structure with four individual compartments. The
second one and the most representative of this training facility—the “Advanced
Firefighting Trainer” displayed in the Figure 19—is a three-story concrete structure that
houses berthing facilities, engine rooms, storage compartments and electrical and engine
room mock-up spaces. In this simulator, the application of the practical phase and live
fire training of the “basic” and “advanced” firefighting courses occurs. The third fire
simulator is an open concrete structure for hose handling training to familiarize students
with pressurized hoses (“wild hoses”).
Figure 19. Firefighting Simulator -“Advanced Firefighting Trainer”
Finally, the fourth simulator, displayed in the Figure 20, is a flight deck
simulator with an aircraft mock-up on deck, simulating crash and helicopter fire
scenarios.
56
Figure 20. Flight Deck Simulator, San Diego
All live fire simulator platforms use propane as the fuel source, and each
structure is controlled by a master computer and operated by instructors to achieve the
desired training.
d. Practical Phase – Simulator Platform Exercises
The training drills in both the “Wet Trainer” simulator (Figure 22) and
firefighting simulator (Figure 23) are conducted in accordance with specific pre-existing
scenarios that are created and monitored at a simulator control station. Each simulator has
an “observation deck” that allows the observation of trainees performing simulated tasks
under realistic environmental conditions (pressurized water leaks and propane-generated
fires). Instructors supervise and closely monitor all training events and are responsible for
observing safety, training event sequences, and participant performance during the
simulation exercises as presented in the Figure 21. The operating computer system
currently used is Windows 2000.
57
Figure 21. Firefighting Simulator Control Station
Figure 22. Damage Control-Wet Trainer Simulator
58
Figure 23. Firefighting Simulator Platform
e. Simulator Debriefing
After the completion of the training scenarios, instructors methodically

review the execution of the drills step-by-step and, trainees’ task performance, and then
present to students both positive and negative feedback for improvement.
2. Training System Components Investigation
In the following section the author describes analytically the main training system
components of the “Shipboard Firefighting” course.
a. Training Syllabus/Learning Objectives
All the U.S. Navy training courses are thoroughly described in the Catalog
of Navy Training Courses (CANTRAC) (2011), with their category, type, security,
center, purpose, scope, and prerequisites.
Furthermore, the Department of the Navy (2007) Course Master Schedule

Binder, is the basic guidebook that illustrates the elements of all training courses
provided in the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego.
59
Specifically, it describes analytically:
• The Course Training Task List (CTTL) with the mission statement
of each course, the duties/tasks, and the corresponding
bibliography.
• The Curriculum Outline of Instruction (J-495-0419A) with the
training units/terminal objectives, and the lesson topics with the
enabling objectives and the analogous bibliography.
• The Learning Objectives (J-495-0419A) of the courses in details
and the relative references.
b. Description of Curricula/Training Scenarios
The training scenarios are described in the Department of the Navy (2007)
Course Master Schedule Binder, J-495-0419A, Curriculum Outline of Instruction, from
Unit 11:1.0 to Unit 14.2:8.6.
Generally, the course includes the following subjects:

• Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
• Chemistry of fire
• Portable extinguishers
• Personal protective clothing (PPC)
• Damage control communications
• Fire party duties and responsibilities
• Firefighting procedures
• Wild hose recovery
• Portable exothermic cutting unit (PECU)
• De-smoking equipment and accessories
• P-100 emergency pump and accessories
• Machinery space fire doctrine
• Special hazard fires
• Mass conflagration procedures
• Repair locker equipment
• Trainer (simulator platform) familiarization
60
c. Instructor Qualification Standards. Selection, Training,
Certification, and Evaluation of Qualified Instructors
The Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego has
seventeen qualified instructors, ten civilian contractors and seven military instructors.
The instructor’s duty is designated to a maximum of thirty-six months (Military
Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1306-953, 2009).
The instructors are selected, trained, screened, certified, and evaluated

according to the procedures described in the Naval Education and Training Command
(NAVEDTRA 135C) (2010).
As stated by this document, the instructor is the front line representative of

the training organization and is a critical element in the training process. To ensure that
quality instructors are assigned to a training activity, standardization in the following key
areas shall be maintained:
• Selection process for instructors
• Training of instructors
• Screening of instructors assigned to high-risk training
• Certification/evaluation of instructors
In some cases, contract instructors are required to provide instructional services.
The following information is extracted from the Naval Education and

Training Command (NAVEDTRA 135C) (2010).
(1) Instructor Selection Policy. First, candidate instructors should be

meet the screening criteria listed in the Military Personnel Manual
(MILPERSMAN) 1306-953 (2009), to determine the member’s suitability
for such duty. These requirements include the following:
• Physically, psychologically, and temperamentally suited for

instructor duty.
• Knowledge and expertise in the subject area assigned to teach.
• Good communication skills or the potential to develop them.
• Maturity.
61
• Emotional stability and the ability to maintain self-control under
all circumstances. If there is any doubt as to this attribute,
psychological screening will be conducted.
• Adherence to Health and Physical Readiness Program Standards as
defined in OPTAVINST 6110.1 (series).
• Positive role model.
• People oriented.
• Desire to teach.
(2) Instructor Training Policy. Personnel assigned instructor duty

will complete training for their job assignment. If quota availability does
not coincide with availability of qualified personnel, prospective gains will
be assigned without instructor training to avoid billet gaping. Priority of
assignment to instructor school will be given to members ordered to
instructor duty who will not have an instructor school in the immediate
geographic area of their ultimate duty station. Problems obtaining quotas
will be coordinated with NETC. If the instructor arrives without the formal
training, the instructor must complete it prior to qualification
(3) Screening of Instructors Assigned to High-Risk Training.

Instructors assigned to high-risk courses will undertake a screening
process according to OPNAVINST 5100.23 (series).
(4) Instructor Certification/Evaluation Policy. Certification is a

process that prepares the instructor to conduct training without the direct
supervision of a certified course instructor. Certification normally begins
after the completion of formal training and upon arrival at the training
command for duty. The certification/evaluation plan for instructors
consists of the following eight phases:
• Command Indoctrination. COs are required to ensure that

command indoctrination is provided for incoming instructors. The
indoctrination is designed to provide information to the instructor
on chain of command, command policies on instructor awards
programs, and activities. Safety training will be included in all
command indoctrinations.
• Course Indoctrination. COs are required to ensure that course

indoctrination is provided to all incoming instructors. Course
indoctrination includes indoctrination to safety policies and
programs unique to certifying instructors for that course. It is
designed for instructor trainees, introducing them to course
62
policies and general duties they will be expected to perform. This
training is normally provided by the individual course and may be
completed in conjunction with command indoctrination.
• Attend the Course as a Student (High-Risk only). Prospective
instructors of high-risk segments of the course they are to be
certified to teach as a STUDENT, prior to practice teaching, unless
a waiver has been granted by the CO based on prior training and
experience.
• Core Unique Instructor Training (CUIT) (High-Risk only). CUIT
is designed to prepare the instructor to teach in a high-risk course.
The content of this training will vary from course to course, but it
must include all items of high-risk, which require special attention.
Familiarization with basic tenants of high-risk training and safety
will include mitigation, protocol, and policy. For Core Unique
Training, the items must apply universally to all sites where the
course is taught. NETCINST 5100.1 (series) provides amplifying
guidance on high-risk training and shall be applied
• Instructor Preparation and Practice Teaching. Prior to practice
teaching, all prospective instructors will review the curriculum
materials, observe classes in session, and personalize instructor
guides. The time required to complete Instructor Preparation will
vary based on the previous experience of the instructor and the
frequency of which the training is provided. However, every effort
shall be made to keep this time to a minimum
• Two Satisfactory Evaluations. During the instructor’s Practice
Teaching period, evaluations will be conducted to provide
feedback to the instructor. This feedback will include an
assessment of understanding of the subject matter, as well as
proper use of instructional techniques. The prospective instructor
must receive satisfactory evaluations on a minimum of two
separate presentations while Practice Teaching.
One evaluation will be used to evaluate the instructor's knowledge of the

subject matter. This evaluation verifies the instructor has the necessary
technical qualifications to teach the material without direct supervision.
An instructor evaluator knowledgeable in the subject matter will conduct
this type of evaluation. The second evaluation will be used to evaluate the
instructor’s technique as taught in the formal instructor-training course.
• Certification. After phases one through six are satisfactorily

completed, the instructor is recommended for certification. The
designated certifying authority for the command will officially
certify the instructor and ensure documentation is entered into the
instructor's training record.
63
• Certification to Teach New Material. The course supervisor must
have a process in place to ensure technical competency of the
certified instructor prior to assigning new material for the
instructor to teach. This may require a process similar to
certification, or portions of it, depending on the type of material to
be taught and the experience of the instructor. Course supervisors
are responsible for ensuring that instructors are properly prepared
and the training documented prior to their assignment to teach new
material.
All these phases of instructor certification / evaluation are illustrated in the

following Figure 24:
Figure 24. Instructor Certification/Evaluation Flow Chart (From NAVEDTRA 135C,

2010)
64
d. Training System Resources
For a training program to be effective it must include certain resources in

place at the time of execution (after implementation of the training system). Such
resources include laboratory and classroom spaces, training devices, test equipment, tools
training support equipment, and support materials like syllabi and training guides.
Additionally, qualified instructors, training system managers, and a training budget are
also required.
The visit to the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego
by the author resulted in the following considerations concerning the training system
resources of their facilities:
• The general condition of the spaces, including heating, cooling,
ventilation, and other environmental factors in the classrooms/labs,
is satisfactory
• The availability of training devices, test equipment, damage
control and firefighting gear/tools is adequate
• The general condition of training devices, test equipment, damage
control and firefighting gear/tools, is satisfactory. In addition,
equipment is stored properly. The training material is verified,
functional, safe, updated and in proper working condition ready to
be used just as onboard a ship
• There are enough qualified instructors to successfully instruct the
training programs
• The course syllabi are current, accurate and reflect what is being
taught in the courses. They also include training objectives and
guidelines for determining training (learning) results
e. Training Plan and Schedule Management
The Department of the Navy (2007) Course Master Schedule Binder,

defines the training plan and the schedule management of each course and, describes the
schedule day by day, the type of topic (class or lab), the topic titles, the length period, and
the number/ratio of students.
65
f. Simulation Utilization Log and Other Management Data
Statistical data are kept in the San Diego facilities regarding the following:
• Fire simulator consumables (propane, smoke generator agent,
AFFF, PKP, CO2)
• Other consumables such as CO2 fire extinguishers, PKP fire
extinguishers, AFFF fire extinguishers and SCBAs
• Classes taught per month and the number of students participating
in each class, cumulative classes per year, and cumulative students
taught per year
g. Training Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measurement

Methods
All the courses are “pass” or “fail.” Students do not have written exams or
oral response tests. Shipboard damage control and firefighting courses are evaluated with
individual skills and as a team by instructors with the method of observation.
A student can actually fail in the following conditions:

• Injuries or medical reasons
• Failure to show up for class
• Failure to participate in the class/lab
• Missing ten percent or more of the course
h. Training Performance Data
Data concerning trainees’ success or failure and student critique forms are
kept for feedback.
At the end of each course, the author administered a survey both to instructors and
students to examine their attitudes and opinions about the training provided and received,
respectively.
66
a. Participant Population and Recruitment
The participants of the research were twelve instructors and 38 students of

the “Shipboard Damage Control Trainer” and “Shipboard Firefighting” courses that took
place in the facilities of the U.S. Navy Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site, in
San Diego.
The recruitment took place in this location by the author’s personal and
verbal contact before the start of each training session. The student investigator informed
the candidates that participation was voluntary, not required by their supervisor, and part
of his NPS thesis research.
A consent form was given to each participant prior to the beginning of the
survey to confirm voluntary participation and inform about the scope and the potential
benefits of the study. Furthermore, participants were informed about the duration of the
survey and that they were free to skip any questions or stop participating in the survey
anytime without any penalty. Also, the students were told that the questionnaires were
anonymous and the results of the survey would be used responsibly and protected against
release to unauthorized persons, and they would –only be used for the purpose of this
thesis. The procedures used in this research were approved by the NPS Institutional
Review Board (IRB).
b. Survey Administration (with Rating Items and Open-ended

Items)
The author administered a written survey questionnaire to instructors and

students of the Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego, regarding their
reaction and opinion engendered by the damage control and firefighting training they
provided and received, respectively.
In this way, the author administered two sets of questionnaires that are
illustrated in Appendices A and B. The questions of the survey were constructed in such a
way to reflect the specific learning objectives of the courses and damage control doctrinal
67
standards as taught by the instructors. Thus, twenty questions with rating items and open-
ended items were developed for students and nine questions for instructors
correspondingly.
68
V. RESULTS
A. DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of the survey was to investigate the opinions and measure the level
of satisfaction of both instructors and students regarding the “Shipboard Damage Control
Trainer” and “Shipboard Firefighting” training courses. There were 38 students and
twelve instructors of that participated in the survey; thus, 50 questionnaire forms were
received in total.
B. STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR OPINION FORM QUESTIONNAIRE

RESPONSES
The inspiration for the following analysis is Zaharee’s, (2003) Training Program
Review: Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS) Training Program
Evaluation. Furthermore, tables’ presentations are based on the Master Thesis of Ray,
(2010).
In this section, the author presents the responses given by students and instructors
in the survey concerning their opinion/attitude of the training courses.
1. Student Opinion Forms
a. Rating Questions
Tables 5 through 20 illustrate the responses to the course opinion survey

questions:
69
The plan of instruction/training syllabus was current and accurate
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 26.3% 10
Strongly Agree 71% 27
answered question 38
skipped question 0
NA 1
Table 5. Question 1 Results
An average of 71% of the students strongly agreed that the plan of

instruction/training syllabus was current and accurate while 26.3% of the students agreed.
With a cumulative total of 97.3% of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results
of Question 1 reveal that the vast majority of students perceived the plan of
instruction/training syllabus was current and accurate
The plan of instruction/training syllabus reflects what is being taught in the course
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 21% 8
Strongly Agree 76.3% 29
skipped question 0
NA 1
An average of 76.3% of the students strongly agreed that the plan of

instruction/training syllabus reflects what is being taught in the course while 21% of the
70
students agreed. With a cumulative total of 97.3% of students who strongly agreed or
agreed, the results of Question 2 reveal that the majority of students perceived the plan of
instruction/training syllabus reflects what is being taught in the course.
The goals/objectives of the training were clearly defined
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 0.8% 1
Agree 21% 8
skipped question 1
An average of 76.3% of the students strongly agreed that the

goals/objectives of the training were clearly defined while 21 % of the students agreed.
With a cumulative total of 97.3% of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results
of Question 3 reveal that the majority of students perceived the goals/objectives of the
training were clearly defined.
The training material/student guides were sufficient to support the course
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 5.2% 2
Agree 28.9% 11
skipped question 0
NA 1
71
An average of 63.1% of the students strongly agreed that the training
material/student guides were sufficient to support the course while 28.9% of the students
agreed. An average of 5.2% of the students responded neutral to the question. With a
cumulative total of 92% of students who strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative
total of 5.2% of students who were neutral, the results of Question 4 reveal that the
majority of students perceived the training material/student guides were sufficient to
support the course.
The duration of the course was sufficient to adequately cover the training material/objectives of
the course
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 7.8% 3
Agree 15.7% 6
skipped question 0
NA 11
An average of 47.3% of the students strongly agreed that the duration of

the course was sufficient to adequately cover the training material/objectives of the
course while 15.7% of the students agreed. An average of 7.8% of the students responded
neutral to the question. Also, an average of 28.9% answered not available/do not know.
With a cumulative total of 63% of students who strongly agreed or agreed versus a
cumulative total of 36.7% of students who responded neutral or do not know the results
of Question 5 reveal that the majority of students perceived the duration of the course
was sufficient to adequately cover the training material/objectives of the course.
72
The course was very well organized
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 21% 8
skipped question 0
An average of 78.9% of the students strongly agreed that the course was
very well organized while 21% of the students agreed. With a cumulative total of 99.9%
of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results of Question 6 reveal that the
majority of students perceived the course was very well organized.
The lectures were very helpful
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 7.8% 3
Agree 21% 8
skipped question 0
NA 2
An average of 65.7% of the students strongly agreed that the lectures were
very helpful while 21% of the students agreed. An average of 7.8% of the students
responded neutral to the question. With a cumulative total of 86.7% of students who
strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative total of 7.8% of students who were neutral
73
the results of Question 7 reveal that the majority of students perceived the lectures were
very helpful.
The scenarios in the fire simulator were realistic
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree 2.6% 1
Neutral
Agree 13.1% 5
skipped question 0
NA
An average of 84.2% of the students strongly agreed that the scenarios in

the fire simulator were realistic while 13.1% of the students agreed. An average of 2.6%
of the students disagreed that the scenarios in the fire simulator were realistic. With a
cumulative total of 97.3% of students who strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative
total of 2.6% of students who disagreed, the results of Question 8 reveal that the majority
of students perceived the scenarios in the fire simulator were realistic.
The practical session in the fire simulator was very helpful
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 15.7% 6
skipped question 0
NA 1
74
An average of 81.5% of the students strongly agreed that the practical
session in the fire simulator was very helpful while 15.7% of the students agreed. With a
cumulative total of 97.2% of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results of
Question 9 reveal that the majority of students perceived the practical session in the fire
simulator was very helpful.
The instructors were knowledgeable about the topic
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 7.8% 3
skipped question 4
An average of 81.5% of the students strongly agreed that the instructors

were knowledgeable about the topic while 7.8% of the students agreed. With a
Question 10 reveal that the majority of students perceived the instructors were
knowledgeable about the topic.
75
The instructors were properly prepared for the course
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 7.8% 3
skipped question 4
An average of 81.5% of the students strongly agreed that the instructors

were properly prepared for the course while 7.8% of the students agreed. With a
Question 11 reveal that the majority of students perceived the instructors were properly
prepared for the course.
The goals / objectives of the training have been met
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 26.3% 10
skipped question 4
An average of 63.1% of the students strongly agreed that the

goals/objectives of the training were met while 26.3% of the students agreed. With a
76
Question 12 reveal that the majority of students perceived the goals/objectives of the
training were met.
I was satisfied with the overall training received
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 18.4% 7
skipped question 4
An average of 71% of the students strongly agreed that they were satisfied
with the overall training received while 18.4% of the students agreed. With a cumulative
total of 89.4% of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results of Question 13
reveal that the majority of students perceived they were satisfied with the overall training
received.
Training received will increase my confidence in my ability to effectively fight a fire aboard my
ship
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 15.7% 6
skipped question 4
77
An average of 73.6% of the students strongly agreed that training they
received will increase their confidence in their ability to effectively fight a fire aboard
their ship while 15.7% of the students agreed. With a cumulative total of 89.3% of
students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results of Question 14 reveal that the
majority of students perceived training they received will increase their confidence in
their ability to effectively fight a fire aboard their ship.
The level of instruction was of high quality
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree 18.4% 7
skipped question 4
An average of 71% of the students strongly agreed that the level of

instruction was of high quality while 18.4% of the students agreed. With a cumulative
total of 89.4% of students who strongly agreed or agreed, the results of Question 15
reveal that the majority of students perceived the level of instruction was of high quality.
Overall, I would rate the quality of the received firefighting training received
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Fair
About Average
Excellent 10.5% 4
Outstanding 78.9% 30
skipped question 4
78
An average of 78.9% of the students answered that the overall quality of
the received firefighting training, was outstanding while 10.5% of the students thought it
was excellent. With a cumulative total of 89.4% of students who answered outstanding or
excellent, the results of Question 16 reveal that the majority of students perceived the
overall quality of the received firefighting training was high.
b. Open-ended Questions
The open-ended questions of the survey allowed students to provide

comments and suggestions that they believed would improve the performance of the
firefighting training received. The responses to the open-ended questions are shown
below:
(1) Question 17: The most valuable part of the training
• The practical phase in simulators with live fire and realistic
damage control scenarios
• Real sense of heat and temperature
• The demonstration and the walk through the simulator
compartments before the start of the actual scenarios
• Learning changes since last time course was taken
• Proper hose use techniques
• Learning to use the various firefighting equipment
• Realistic firefighting
• Safety procedures
(2) Question 18: The least valuable part of the training
• The waiting time between the execution of scenarios
• The PowerPoint presentation of the firefighting courses
(3) Question 19: Changes or additions if unlimited funds and
resources exist
• Send all hands to participate in the courses
• Longer course durations especially for the one-day courses
• More training time in simulators; Longer, more, and
stronger scenarios
79
• More exposure to various fires; allow students to
use/experience fighting fires with CO2, PKP, AFFF
• More equipment
• A real Navy ship as the simulator platform
(4) Question 20: Additional comments/explanations or
recommendations that could improve the quality of the firefighting training
• More training time in simulators
• Longer courses
• Use of all damage control and firefighting equipment
2. Instructor Opinion Forms
a. Rating Questions
Tables 20 through 24 illustrate the instructor’s responses to course

satisfaction survey questions:
Attending the training was a good use of student’s time
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 8.3% 1
Agree 8.3% 1
skipped question 0
An average of 83.3% of the instructors strongly agreed that attending the

training was a good use of a student’s time while 8.3% of the instructors agreed. An
average of 8.3% of the instructors responded neutral to the question. With a cumulative
total of 91.6% of instructors who strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative total of
80
8.3% of instructors who were neutral, the results of Question 1 reveal that the majority of
instructors perceived attending the training was a good use of a student’s time.
The level of instruction was of high quality
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 8.3% 1
Agree 8.3% 1
skipped question 0
An average of 83.3% of the instructors strongly agreed that the level of

instruction was of high quality while 8.3% of the instructors agreed. An average of 8.3%
of the instructors responded neutral to the question. With a cumulative total of 91.6% of
instructors who strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative total of 8.3% of instructors
who were neutral, the results of Question 2 reveal that the majority of instructors
perceived the level of instruction was of high quality.
Training environment was of high quality
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 8.3% 1
Agree 16.6% 2
skipped question 0
81
An average of 75% of the instructors strongly agreed that the training
environment was of high quality while 16.6% of the instructors agreed. An average of
8.3% of the instructors responded neutral to the question. With a cumulative total of
91.6% of instructors who strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative total of 8.6% of
instructors who were neutral, the results of Question 3 reveal that the majority of
instructors perceived the training environment was of high quality.
The scenarios in the fire simulator were realistic
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral 8.3% 1
Agree 16.6% 2
skipped question 1
NA 1
An average of 66.6% of the instructors strongly agreed that the scenarios

in the fire simulator were realistic while 16.6% of the instructors agreed. An average of
8.3% of the instructors responded neutral to the question and 8.3% of the instructors
answered not available/do not know. With a cumulative total of 83.3% of instructors who
strongly agreed or agreed versus a cumulative total of 16.7% of instructors who were
neutral or answered not available/do not know, the results of Question 4 reveal that the
majority of instructors perceived the scenarios in the fire simulator were realistic.
82
Overall, I would rate the quality of the firefighting training provided
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent Count
Fair
About Average
Excellent 16.6% 2
Outstanding 83.3% 10
skipped question 0
An average of 83.3% of the instructors answered that the overall quality of

the provided firefighting training was outstanding while 16.6% of the instructors thought
it was excellent. With a cumulative total of 100% of instructors who answered
outstanding or excellent versus no instructors who thought the training was about average
or fair, the results of Question 5 reveal that all instructors perceived the overall quality of
the provided firefighting training was excellent or outstanding.
b. Open-ended Questions
The open-ended questions of the survey allowed instructors to provide

comments and suggestions that they believed would improve the performance of the
firefighting training received by students. The responses to the open-ended questions are
shown below:
(1) Question 6: The most valuable part of the training
• The hands-on live fire training on the simulators
(2) Question 7: The least valuable part of the training
• None
(3) Question 8: Changes or additions if unlimited funds and
resources exist
• Brand new gear and equipment
• Longer course durations
83
(4) Question 9: Additional comments/explanations or
recommendations that could improve the quality of the firefighting training
• None
84
VI. DISCUSSION, SUMMARY FINDINGS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
A. DISCUSSION
After the analysis, processing, and integration of the three methodology phases,
the author extracted the following conclusions related to the damage control and
firefighting training provided at the U.S. Navy Center for Naval Engineering Learning
Site in San Diego:
• The visit to the training facilities was a worthwhile experience for the
author since he had the opportunity to observe and participate in all phases
of training; he was also able to gain much insight into how some damage
control and firefighting training courses, using simulators, were conducted
• Every stage and phase of training is standardized and based on predefined
training manuals/guides
• Simulator platforms-trainers are effective, operational, and provide
realistic and high-quality training
• The training syllabi and learning objectives of various courses are current,
accurate, and reflect the actual and realistic needs of modern Navies’
damage control and firefighting functions
• The training scenarios in simulators are realistic and reveal the real
requirements of firefighting aboard Navy ships
• Instructors follow a standard procedure in order to be selected, trained,
evaluated, certified, and qualified
• The training system resources are adequate and sufficient to provide
advanced high-level training
• The training plan and schedule management are accurately predefined in
the training manuals in the school
• Simulation utilization logs and management statistical data regarding
simulator consumptions, material, students’ pipeline, and training courses
are thoroughly kept in the training facilities
• Students’ opinion forms-critiques concerning safety, instructor/courses
evaluations are collected and maintained for further analysis
• During this study, instructors’ and students’ subjective ratings and
opinions about the damage control and firefighting training courses were
85
absolutely positive. The majority of personnel involved in the training
thought that the overall quality of the firefighting and damage control
training was excellent or outstanding.
B. SUMMARY FINDINGS
After participating in several damage control and firefighting courses,

investigating the main training system components, and administering surveys to
instructors and students regarding their attitude and opinion about the training system, the
author was led to the following considerations:
• The damage control and firefighting training currently provided at the
Center for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego is very effective,
valuable, professionally delivered, and of very high quality
• The training meets its goals and objectives
• The training is certainly beneficial for trainees and consequently for the
U.S. Navy
• This training program/plan can be utilized as a “Training Evaluation
Model” and “Training Doctrine” for any program with similar
characteristics
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering that damage control and firefighting training courses need to be

permanently updated, effective and maintained at a high quality, the author proposes
some recommendations/considerations that can potentially lead to training enhancements
and improvements:
• Continuous and uninterrupted propane supply should be available when
required to ensure the smooth operation and continuous availability of fire
simulators and consequently the training courses
• A periodic maintenance plan for simulators should be implemented to
ensure that they are operational and ready to constantly serve the training
purposes
• The training equipment as well as damage control and firefighting
gear/apparatus used for training should have equivalent and analogous
inspection standards as those in Navy ships
86
• The Phase Replacement Plan for the training equipment and gear needs to
be automatically executed in order to ensure uninterrupted and high
quality training
• If funds are available, new gear acquisition could be considered to replace
older equipment
• If resources permit, reinforcement with newly qualified instructors would
be beneficial
• New technologies, material, equipment or gear could be firstly provided to
the training facilities and afterwards to Navy ships.
• After the completion of each course, students should be given the training
material/student guides taught in class in the form of a CD or DVD as a
reference to revise and recur when needed
• A close cooperation between the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Fire
Administration/civilian firefighting in terms of exchanging experiences,
lessons learned, training methods, or use of new technologies in
firefighting, would be beneficial
• Like the firefighting training in the civilian National Fire Academy, the
crewmembers/candidates of a Navy ship should complete some damage
control/firefighting training courses online before arriving at the
firefighting training centers
D. FUTURE RESEARCH
Considering the damage control and firefighting training provided in the Center
for Naval Engineering Learning Site in San Diego as a training evaluation model and
training doctrine, an analogous evaluation of the Hellenic’s damage control and
firefighting training program could be applied.
87
88
APPENDIX A. STUDENT OPINION FORM QUESTIONNAIRE
STUDENT OPINION FORM FOR NPS THESIS STUDY1

Please enter your participant number. (Your participant number is the last 4 digits of your
home or cell telephone number):
We are interested in your assessment of the firefighting training received during the
“Advanced Shipboard Firefighting” course and would like to ask you to complete the
following form. For each statement, please check if you agree or disagree using a rating
scale from “1” to “5”. A rating of “1” indicates that you strongly disagree with the
statement and a rating of “5” indicates that you strongly agree and “3” is the level where
you neither agree nor disagree (neutral). Also, a “N/A” (Not Applicable) choice is
available if you feel unqualified or unable to answer any particular question. Please
answer all questions.
CATEGORIES Check your response
using the following
scale:
1- Strongly Disagree
2- Disagree
3- Neutral
4- Agree
5- Strongly Agree
Instruction 1 2 3 4 5
1. The plan of instruction / training Syllabus was current
and accurate
N/A
2. The plan of instruction / training Syllabus reflect what is
being taught in the course N/A
3. The goals / objectives of the training were clearly defined
N/A
4. The training material / student guides were sufficient to
support the course N/A
5. The duration of the course (4 days) was sufficient to
cover adequately the training material / objectives of the
course N/A
6. The course was very well organized N/A
7. The lectures were very helpful N/A
8. The scenarios in the fire simulator N/A
were realistic
1 This questionnaire is used to assess students’ opinions following the “Advanced Shipboard
Firefighting Training” course. The questions are based on: DoD Handbook Instructional Systems
Development/Systems Approach to Training and Education (MIL-HDBK-29612-2A, 31 August 2001), and
NPS Student Opinion Form (SOF).
89
9. The practical session in the fire simulator N/A
was very helpful
Instructors
10. The instructors were knowledgeable about N/A
the topic
11. The instructors were properly prepared N/A
for the course
General Satisfaction
12. The goals / objectives of the training N/A
have been met
13. I was satisfied from the overall training received N/A
14. Training received will increase my confidence in my
ability to effectively fight a fire aboard my ship N/A
15. The level of instruction was of high quality N/A
Please use the following scale for the next item based Check your response:
upon your experience with other training classes: 1- Fair
2- About Average
3- Excellent
4- Outstanding
1 2 3 4
16. Overall, I would rate the quality of the received
firefighting training received N/A
Open-ended questions
17. What was the most valuable part of the training for you?
18. What was the least valuable part of the training for you?
19. If unlimited funds and resources exist, what changes or additions would you
suggest?
20. Please provide any additional comments / explanations or recommendations that

could improve the quality of the firefighting training
90
APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTOR OPINION FORM
QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTOR OPINION FORM FOR NPS THESIS STUDY2

Please enter your participant number. (Your participant number is the last 4 digits of your
home or cell telephone number):
We are interested in your assessment of the training provided during the “Advanced
Shipboard Firefighting” course and would like to ask you to complete the form. For each
statement, please check if you agree or disagree using a rating scale from “1” to “5”. A
rating of “1” indicates that you strongly disagree with the statement and a rating of “5”
indicates that you strongly agree and “3” is the level where you neither agree nor disagree
(neutral). Also, a “NA” (Not Applicable) choice is available if you feel unqualified or
unable to answer any particular question. Please answer all questions.
Check your response using the following scale:
1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Attending the training was a good use of student’s

time N/A
2. The level of instruction was N/A
of high quality
3. Training environment was N/A
of high quality
4. The scenarios in the fire simulator N/A
were realistic
Please use the following scale for the next item based Check your response:
upon your experience with other training classes: 1- Fair
2- About Average
3- Excellent
4- Outstanding
1 2 3 4
5. Overall, I would rate the quality of the firefighting
training provided N/A
2 This questionnaire is used to assess instructors’ opinions following the “Advanced Shipboard
Firefighting Training” course. The questions are based on: DoD Handbook Instructional Systems
Development/Systems Approach to Training and Education (MIL-HDBK-29612-2A, 31 August 2001), and
NPS Student Opinion Form (SOF).
91
Open-ended questions
6. What was the most valuable part of the training for you?
7. What was the least valuable part of the training for you?
8. If unlimited funds and resources exist, what changes or additions would you
suggest?
9. Please provide any additional comments / explanations or recommendations that

could improve the quality of the firefighting training
92
LIST OF REFERENCES
Bardshar, F. A., (1969). Record of Proceedings: Formal Board of Investigation

Convened by Order of Commander Naval Air Force United States Pacific Fleet to
Inquire into the Circumstances Surrounding a Fire Which Occurred on Board
USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) on 14 January 1969 Ordered on 15 January 1969.
San Francisco, CA.
Betts, R. L. (2008). Preliminary user and system requirements for an F/A-18 Deployable
Mission Rehearsal Trainer (DMRT) (Master’s Thesis). Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA.
Clark, W., (1991). Firefighting Principles and Practices. Saddle Brook, NJ, United States
of America: Fire Engineering Books and Videos. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books.
Crown, (2009). HMS Excellent, Firefighting Training. Retrieved from

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/establishments/training-
establishments/hms-excellent/fire-fighting-training/index.htm#content
Department of Defense. (1991). 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemorative

Committee. Pearl Harbor: 50th Anniversary Commemorative Chronicle, "A
Grateful Nation Remembers" 1941-1991. Washington: The Committee, 1991.
Retrieved from http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm.
Department of Defense. (2001). Handbook Instructional Systems Development/Systems

Approach to Training and Education. Retrieved from
http://www.atsc.army.mil/itsd/imi/Documents/MilHdbk/HB2_ALL.pdf.
Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. (2004). Surface Ship
Survivability (NTTP 3-20.31).
Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAVINST

3120.32C.). (1994). Standard Organization and Regulations of the U.S Navy
(SORM).
Department of the Navy, Commander Naval Surface Forces (COMNAVSURFORINST

3502.1B). (2007). Surface Force Training Manual. Retrieved from
http://navybmr.com/study%20material%203/COMNAVSURFORINST%203502.
1D.pdf.
Department of the Navy. (1967). Manual of the Judge Advocate General: Basic Final
Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS Forrestal.
Washington, D.C.: United States Navy.
93
Department of the Navy. (2009). Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) 1306-
953. Retrieved from http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-
npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1300Assignment/Documents/1306-953.pdf.
Department of the Navy. (2007). Course Master Schedule Binder, J-495-0419, updated
on October 31.
Farlex. (2011). The Free Dictionnary. Retrieved from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fire
Hays, R. (1997). Formative Evaluations of the Vesub Technology Demonstration System.

Orlando, FL.
Hellenic’s Navy, Naval Education Administration, (2007). Damage Control Training

Regulations.
Jones, M.C. (2008). Simulation across the Spectrum of Submarine Training. Old
Dominion University, Suffolk, VA.
Jiang, X., Chen, N., Hong, J., Wang, K., Takayama, L & Landay, J. (2004). Siren:
Context-Aware Computing for Firefighting. Human-Computer Interaction
Institute. Paper 77. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/77.
Manning, J. (2001). The USS Stark Incident. Retrieved from

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm.
McMichael, W. (2010). 10 years after Cole bombing, a different Navy. Retrieved from
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/10/navy-cole-10-years-later-101110w.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (2011). Mortality Data; U.S. Census
Bureau Population Estimates, July 1 Estimates 2003-2007. Retrieved from
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates.
Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center

(NAVEDTRA 14057). (2003). Damage Controlman. Retrieved from
http://www.navybmr.com/NAVEDTRA%2014057.html.
Naval Education and Training Command. (2011). Catalog of the U.S. Navy Training
Courses (CANTRAC).Retrieved from
https://cetarsj2eepd.cnet.navy.mil/cantrac/pages.
Naval Education and Training Command (NAVEDTRA 135C). (2010). Navy School
Management Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.mysdcc.sdccd.edu/Staff/Instructor_Development/Content/PDFs/NAV
EDTRA_135C.pdf.
94
Naval Sea Systems Command. (2006). Naval Ship’s Technical Manual (NSTM,
Ch555V1R12), Surface Ship Firefighting.
Naval Sea Systems Command. (2000). Naval Ship’s Technical Manual (NSTM,
Ch079V2R2), Volume 2- Damage Control Practical Damage Control.
Ray, K. M. (2010). Identifying Capabilities Gaps Within Shipboard Visit, Board, Search,
Seizure (VBSS) Teams. (Master’s Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
CA.
Stewart, H. P. (2004). The Impact of the USS Forrestal’s 1967 Fire on United States
Navy Shipboard Damage Control. (Master’s Thesis). Fort Leavenworth, KS.
U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Academy. (2010). Course Catalog. Retrieved
from
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/1011_nfa_catalog.pdf.
Wilson, J., Steingart D., Russel R., Reynolds J., Mellers E., Redfern A., Lim L., Watts
W., Patton C., Baker J., & Wright P., (2005). Design of Monocular Head-
Mounted Displays for Increased Indoor Firefighting Safety and Efficiency.
Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.89.8394&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf.
Zaharee, M. E. (2003). Training Program Review: Theater Battle Management Core

Systems (TBMCS) Training Program Evaluation. Andover, MA.
95
96
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
1. Defense Technical Information Center

Ft. Belvoir, Virginia
2. Dudley Knox Library

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California
3. Hellenic General Staff, Department of Personnel and Training

Holargos
Athens, Greece
4. Professor Michael E. McCauley

5. Professor Anthony Ciavarelli

6. Department of the Navy, Center for Naval Engineering-

Learning Site
San Diego, California
7. Lieutenant Commander Georgios Varelas Hellenic Navy

Athens, Greece
8. D.O.A.T.A.P
Inter-University Center for the Recognition of Foreign Academic
Academic Titles
Athens, Greece
97

Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, California

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, California

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAVAL

EVALUATION OF MODERN NAVIES’ DAMAGE

Thesis Advisor: Michael McCauley

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF

EVALUATION OF MODERN NAVIES’ DAMAGE CONTROL AND

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MODELING, VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS,

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Author: Georgios Varelas

Approved by: Michael E. McCauley

Figure 1. Systems Approach to Survivability (From NTTP 3-20.31 Surface Ship

Table 1. Fire Classifications...........................................................................................13

Third, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the administration of the

It is obvious that permanent, continuous and high-level damage control and

This thesis focuses on the following objectives:

• Identify whether this training meets its goals and objectives

1. Field Observation and Researcher’s Training Participation

2. Training System Components Examination

3. Survey Administration - Data Collection

After the completion of each course, the researcher administered a survey

The outline of the remaining chapters is as follows:

Undoubtedly, people are living in an era of changes. Dramatic and intensive

B. SURVIVABILITY, DAMAGE CONTROL AND FIRE FUNDAMENTALS

“Survivability” is defined as the capacity of a ship to absorb damage and maintain

Fire prevention and firefighting have proven essential to survival of a ship in

Consequently, fire is a constant danger aboard a ship, so preventive measures are

Fire or combustion is defined as “a rapid, persistent chemical reaction that

Combustion is the rapid oxidation of millions of vapor molecules. This

The heat produced by the combustion reaction is emitted radially in all

4. Requirements for Combustion

The generation of a fire requires three components: the combustible

Figure 2. Requirements for Combustion (From Gustavb, 2006)

Another precondition required for a fire to exist is an uninterrupted

As previously mentioned, fire is a chemical reaction that generates flames, heat,

a. Class ALPHA (A)

c. Class CHARLIE (C)

Fires in which the combustible materials are relative to electric equipment

d. Class DELTA (D)

Fires in which the combustible materials are metals, such as magnesium or

FIRE CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLES OF TYPES TYPE OF

ALPHA Solids : Paper, wood, Water

BRAVO Liquids: oil, paints, diesel AFFF, halon, PKP, CO2,

CHARLIE Electric: wires, motors CO2, halon

PKP can be used as last

DELTA Metals Discard from ship, water in

Table 1. Fire Classifications

10. Firefighting Agents

In this section, the author describes some representative incidents/mishaps in the

1. Pearl Harbor, WWII

The following information is based on the Department of Defense, 50th

On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the U.S. Navy’s infrastructures in Pearl

2. USS Forrestal (CVA-59) Incident

The following information is based on the Master Thesis of Henry P. Stewart,

Immediately after this disaster, a Manual of the Judge Advocate General

Figures 5, and 6 below, demonstrate the severity of Forrestal fire.

Figure 7. Fire on Board the USS Enterprise (From USN, 1969)

4. USS Stark (FFG-31) Incident